The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-15 00:00:00

ST. VICTOR V. DEVEREUX.

The Court then proceeded to hear the further argu-
ments in this part-beard motion, which came before the
Court upon appeal from the decision of the Master of
the Rolls, discharging an order he had formerly made,
permitting the plaintiff to sue in forma pauporis. The
case occupied the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 14.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
GRIFFITHS V. WALTON.

Mr. MARTIN, in this case, moved, on the part of the
plaintiff, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from
making and selling articles of metal, such as tea-pots,
coffee-pots, saucepans, &c., &c., manufactured according
to certain processes for which the plaintiff had a patent.
An application had previously been made to the Court
in the month of October last, on similar grounds, and
an order was issued, enjoining the defendant to cease
from making these articles from the 14th of November.
It was in consequence of a breach of this order since
that date, that the motion for the present injunction was
made. The plaintiff's patent was taken out in 1834 ; it
was for an improvement in the method of manufacturing
articles of the description above-mentioned, the process
being generally applicable to all articles of tin,
copper, and plated ware. The specification of the
patent was perfectly valid, and was a docu-
ment of considerable length, setting forth the various
processes used in the manufacture. From the time
the patent was taken out, in 1834, to the present time,
the plaintiffs continued to exercise their skill and right
under it. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to de-
scribe, at some length, the details of the different pro-
cesses, which were explained by various specimens of
the finished articles, and the dies, moulds, and machinery
used in making them. These were produced in Court,
and submitted to the inspection of his Honour. The
Learned Gentleman stated that the plaintiff and defendant
were engaged in the same trade, one residing at Birming-
ham, the other at Wolverhampton; and that the defendant
had frequently purchased the patented articles of the
plaintiff, and supplied them to his (defendant's) cus-
tomers, and furnished them to his agents and travellers
as specimens. Having further pointed out the identity
of the articles now made by the defendant with those
manufactured by the plaintiff, he concluded by pressing
for an injunction to restrain the defendant from such
manufacture.

Mr. RUSSELL appeared for the defendant, and pleaded
want of novelty in the invention, and want of infringe-
ment of the patent on the part of his client.
HIS HONOUR was of opinion that the best course, be-
fore proceeding any further in the case, world be, that
a competent person should examine articles manufac-
tured both by the plaintiff and defendant., and report
thereon to the Court ; and for that purpose he should
direct, by the consent of both parties, that the defendants
should admit ➢ir. Fairey to their works, in order to in-
spect the manufacture by them of teapots, &c., resem-
bling those now exhibited ; and that some should also
be manufactured by the defendants, in his presence; that
he should be furnished with a copy of the plaintiff's
specification ; that the plaintiff should also manufac-
ture, in his presence, tea-pots, &e., according to that
specification ; and that he should make a report to the
Court of the processes so to he executed, with observa-
tions upon them .and also upon the tools and machinery
now in the plaintiffs possession ; the report to be vere-
fied by atfiidavit, and the motion to stand over till the
report should be made.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DOE DEM ANGELL V. ANGELL.

This was the celebrated ejectment case, on the deci-
sion of which the right to the great Angell estates de-
pends. It was tried about twelve months since on the
Home Circuit, and a verdict was returned for the lessee
of the plaintiff. A rule nisi had subsequently been ob-
tained for a new trial, and the arguments on that rule
were continued this morning.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE MARQUIS OF BUTE V. THOMPSON.
In this case the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff
on the 6th of July, when Mr. Baron Alderson stated
that in the course of the present term he would give the
reasons of his decision.
Mr. lIIGGINs, as counsel for the plaintiff, applied to
the Court this morning to fix a convenient day for that
purpose, alleging. as the ground of the application, that
ulterior proceedings were contemplated.
The Court would take the matter into consideration.