The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-02 00:00:00

LAW INTILLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NAY 1.
ASSIGNEES ACTING AS ACCOUNTANTS.

REED IN THE MATTER OF SOWERBY, a Bankrupt.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that he
had consulted with the Vice. Chancellor relative
to the Assignees in this Commission of Bank-
ruptcy having acted as Accountant, and as such
having. made a charge against the Bankrupt's
estate. He was led to understand it was a usual
custom not only at Liverpool, but in London.
It was a practice, however, that he much doubted
whether it ought to be tolerated by the Court, as
there was danger to be apprehended from it.
Where an Accountant was employed by the-joint
Assignees they saw that he did his duty, but
where one of the Assignees was the Accountant
his Co-Assignee was kept in the dark. His Ho-
nour the Vice-Chancellor had promised to take
the subject into his consideration and communi-
cate the result of his deliberation to him (the Lord
Chancellor,) and when he had done so, his Lord-
ship would dispose of the petition.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 1.
PATENT CHAIN CABLES.
BRUNTON V. HAWK,E.

This was an action against the defendant for
invading a Patent obtained by the plaintiff for
making chain mooring cables, and an improved
method of making ships' anchors. At the Sittings
in Westminster, after last Trinity Term, before
the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury, the
plaintiff had a verdict. In Michaelmas Term a
rule Nisi was granted for setting aside the verdict
and obtaining a new trial. Cause was shtwn
against the rule last week, when the Court, after
much discussion, seemed to be of opinion that the
plaintiff was entitled to the merit of inventing the
chain cable ; but that, as to the anchor, it was a
matter of doubt. The case, however, was or-
dered to stand over for further argument, this
day, upon two questions :-1. Whether the Pa-
tent was good as to the anchor as well as to the
chain cable ; and if not-2. Whether the Patent
being bad as to part of the consideration, it was
bad in foto?

Mr. SCARLET; Mr. MARRYAT, Mr. GURNEY,
and Mr. CHITTY', were heard at considerable
length on both points.
Mr. GASELEE (with whom were the SOLICI TOR
GENERAL, Mr. F. POLLOCK, and Mr. H. I. STE-
PHEN) was stopped by.

The COURT, who were clearly of opinion, that
the Patent being- bad as to the anchor, it was
bad as to all—for the consideration on which the
Patent was granted having failed in part, it vi-
tiated the whole. Their Lordships came to this
conclusion, upon the authority of the case of Hill
v. Thompson in the Court of Common Pleas, but
expressed extreme reluctance to coming to such
a decision. It would be open, however, to the
plaintiff, to take the opinion of a Court of Error
upon the subject, by having a special verdict up-
on a new trial, should it be thought advisable
upon consideration to do so.
Rule absolute for a new trial.

On Monday afternoon, as a funeral was pro-
ceeding along the Strand, the horses in a .hackney
coach, on the stand oppdsite the Adelphi, took
fright at the plume of feathers, and ran furiously
down Salisbury-street, when, suddenly plunging
against the railing at the bottom, the animals
were precipitated to a depth of nearly 40 feet
into a timber-yard newt the river. 1-lad it not
been for the splinter-bar's breaking at the mo-
ment, the coach must have been dragged along
with them, and dashed to atoms. The horses
were so seriously injured, that an order was given
yesterday to kill them.