The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-14 00:00:00

CHAIsICELY.—(THIS DAY.)

STELE V. STEWART.

The LORD CnANct,Lott gave judgment to-day in this
case, which came beire the Court some time since upon
appeal from the deci,on of the Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land. The only qu4tion in the case was, whether cer-
tain letters that bac passed between the parties and
their agents were or/ere not privileged communications.
The Vice-Chancello decided that they were ; and from
that decision the peties appealed to that branch of the
Court. It appeareuhat the defendant brought an ac-
tion against the plaltiff upon a policy of insurance on
a ship called th Sherborne, bound to Calcutta.
The defence set up to that action was that
the ship was nt sea-worthy. Certain letters
passed between tharties relative to the evidence to be
adduced at the tris and a bill was filed for the purpose
of compelling the lefendant to produce them. On the
case coming beforethe Vice- Chancellor of England, he
refused to order heir production ; and his Lordship
agreeing in the prQriety of that decision, dismissed the
appeal with costs.

ST. 'ICTOR Vt DEVEREUX.

The Court then proceeded to hear the further argu-
ments in this part4eard motion, which came before the
Court upon appeal rom the decision of the Master of
the Rolls, discharpg an order he had formerly made,
permitting the plaLtitf to sue in forma pauperis. The
case occupied the thole morning.

VICE-CHA)CERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Bebre Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
GRFFITIIS U. 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, saucepais, &c., &c., manufactured according
to certain processes for which the plaintiff had a patent.
An application hadpreviously been made to the Court
in the month of Ocober last, on similar grounds, and
an order was issue], 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 notion for the present injunction was
made. The plaintirs 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 Aas taken out, in 1834, to the present time,
the their skill and right
under it. Cho 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, aid 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.
(The case was not concluded when we went to press.)

QT-TEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
DOE DEM ANGELL V. ANGELL. . . .

This was tlit9 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 Kas 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. These arguments, which
were of a purely technical character, will not, in all pro-
bability, be concluded to-day.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(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 i❑ the course of the present term he would give the
reasons of his decision.
Mr. HIGGINS, 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.