The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-13 00:00:00

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE

PRIVY COUNCIL.—(THIS DAY.)
Th• Committee of the Privy Council was occupied
throughout the morning in hearing the argument in the
part-heard 'case of Anund Lal Singh Deo v. Maharaja
Djerag Gurrood, which is an appeal from one of the
Courts of Judicature in Bengal, involving the question of
a disputed pedigree.
Th• counsel for the appellants are Mr. Turner, Q.C.,
Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Maule ; and the respondents were
represented by Mr. Loftus Wigram, Q.C., Mr. Lloyd,
and Mr. Moore.

Mr. WIGRAM was heard this morning for the re-
spondents. _ _

The Members of the Council present were—Lord
Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Langdale, the Judge
of the Admiralty Court, the Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh,
and Sir Edward Ryan.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

♦DAMS V. THE RLACIWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.

The further arguments in this appeal were resumed
and concluded this morning. The case came before his
Lordship upon appeal from the judgment of the Vice-
Chancellor Wigram, overruling a demurrer put in by
the defendants to the plaintiff's bill. The plaintiff
sought for a declaration from the Court, that the com-
pany were bound to complete their purchase of the Fair-
field Works at Stratford, and the demurrer was for want
of equity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the ar-
guments, stated that he should consider the case before
he gave his judgment.

THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT P. MORRIS.

The further arguments in this part-heard case were
then resumed, and occupied the Court the, remainder of
the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Befare the ViCE-CHANCELJAA Of ENGLAND.)

♦NDERSON V. WARNER AND OTHERS.-INIUNCTION.

Mr. BETMELL applied this morning, at the sitting
of the Court, ex parte on behalf of Mr. Anderson, the
present lessee of Drury-lane Theatre, for a special in-
junction under the following circumstances:—lt ap-
peared that the plaintiff; Mr. Anderson, had invented a
cheque engine, by which the number of cheques taken at
the door of a theatre, or any other place, could be as-
certained, and fraud thereby prevented. The plaintiff,
it appeared, had applied to the defendants, who are
brass-founders and machinists, carrying on business in
Jewin- crescent, Jewin-street, to manufacture the
engines for him. Since doing so, the plaintiff
had applied for a patent in order to secure the invention;
and it was agreed, provided the patent was obtained, and
the plaintiff and defendants could come to terms, that the
latter should manufacture the engines for the former.
At the present moment, although the patent was in pro-
gress, it was not yet sealed, but was in the Attorney-
G eneral's office. The defendants, it appeared,
had manufactured a considerable number of ma-
chines, and notwithstanding the remonstrance of
the plaintiff, insisted upon still manufacturing and
selling them. The plaintiff, who was apprehensive
if the sale of the machine took place it would amount to
a publication of the invention and destroy the patent,
filed the present bill for the purpose of obtaining en in-
junction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing,
selling, or communicating, or publishing in any
manner the nature of the invention. Mr. Bethell
said that he would not on an ex parts mo-
tion ask for the injunction to the full extent
cf the notice of motion, but only to restrain
the defendant from communicating or publishing
in any manner the invention, taking at the same
time leave to serve a notice of motion ou the
defendant for Saturday next for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from selling or manufacturing any appa-
ratus in imitation of the plaintiff's invention.
The VICE-CHA.NCELLOR, thinking it would be most
unjust for the defendant to be allowed to manufacture
and sell the machine until the plaintiff had obtained his
patent and some agreement had been come to between
them, granted the injunction in; the terms asked,
and gave leave to give notice of motion for
Saturday next for an intended injunction.
Injunction granted.
The Court then proceeded to hear causes, and the
arguments in the case of " Becks v. Bell," which came
before the Court upon demurrer, occupied the Court the
whole morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Hououu, after disposing of the bankrupt petition
of " Johnson v. Bulmer," which came before him upon
do c eceads
case
do
ft o
ehre aorw
et hi
ley! al; tobbesro
na g u
wm
he
in:ha
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WlGRasi.)
JOHNSON V. JOHNSON.
iao
Ile
SC
put eh'
iadpl at
chrates-ehWehpaorle morning.
r

The further arguments in this part-heard case occu
pied the Court the whole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court sat in Banco this morning and took the
special paper, but nothing occurred sufficient to justify
a detailed report, the proceedings having reference only
to points of purchase and pleading.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Fritts, at Westminster, before the Lord
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF NAUDSLAY v

LORE AND OTHERS.
This was a proceeding for the purpose of trying the
validity of a patent which was granted in 183$ to a per-
son of the name of Lowe, for an improvement in the
mode of propelling vessels, and was instituted by Mr.
Maudalay, the well-known engineer, against Lowe and
various other persons of considerable wealth and respect-
ability, who had become interested in the patent.
Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Peacock
appeared for the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General,
Mr. M. Smith, and Mr. Webster for the defendants.
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER, in opening the case, said
the invention bad reference to an improved application
of screw propellers to vessels, and Mr. Maudalay alleged
that it was perfectly well known to the world for many
years previous to the patent being obtained. It appeared
that various experiments had been made, with the view
of ascertaining the correct principle upon which the
screw ought to be applied. The first desideratum was
to decide upon what part of the vessel the screw was to
be placed. Some proposed the bow, some the midships,
and others at or about the stern, but it was now univer-
sally admitted that there was only one useful and prac-
tical position, viz., the dead wood of the stern, a
portion of which was taken out in order to make
an aperture in which the screw might be placed.
The next thing to be decided was the form of the screw,
and various inventions had been made as to the con-
struction of it, and upon these the originality of Mr.
Lowe's would depend. Mr. Lowe said that his screw
consisted of one or more curved blades set or fixed on
a revolving sharp or axis below the water line c.f the
vessel, but he had not the slightest pretence for claim-
ing a monopoly against the public in respect of any
originality in his discovery. As long ago as 1785 Mr
Bramah, who was familiar to the scientific world, took
out a patent for a variety of objects, and among them
one for propelling vessels by means of a screw, which
one
to all intents and purposes was the same as the
claimed by Mr. Lowe. Again, in 1800, a Mr. Shortere
i
obtained a patent for a screw on a similar principle. tK as
made with blades having the appearance of the vertical
sails of a windmill, and its only difference to 51r. Lowe's
screw was that it was worked by means of a out-rigger
carried out from behind the vessel. Another patent
was taken out in 1829, for an invention of a Frenchman
named Cammoreaux, also in 1832 iy a Mr. Woodcroft,
and in 1836 by a Mr. allEllickson,_of which involved
to a certain extent the principle of Mr. Lowe's invention.
It had, in fact, been admitted by Mr. Lowe that the en-
tire screws or blades used by him had been made and
applied be'ore, but, he alleged, had proved failures, and
his only claim to originality
Has applying the curved
blades, previously in tlt on an axis below the water
line. Independent
the Learned Counsel theid want of originality,
said
that the specification
was not sufficiently explicit to inform the pub-
lic of the nature of the invention, and con-
tended, therefore, that Mr. Lowe was not entitled to
the patent.
Mr. Gallaway, the engineer, and several other scien-
tific gentlemen were examined in support of the plain-
tiff's case, but their evidence was almost entirely of a
technical and scientific nature.
The case had not concluded, and was likely to occupy
a considerable time.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
:Sittings in Banco, Wore Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr.
Justice CaEsswELL, Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, and Mr.
Justice Luso nap.) ... .. ._. ..

The cases which eume before this Court this morning
presented no feature of interest to merit 6 report.