The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

1; ~THE HATTER. OF BATLEY, A SUPPOSED BANKRtirT.
ta SUGDEN appeared for the petitioner, Mr.
t•s tY, who applied for an order to stay the adver-
erneist in the Gazette, of the Commission that had
th"" ta/;en out against him. The petitioner swore
't. he: had committed no act of bankruptcy, that
4ein„att in his banker's hands, cash to the amount of
unit that he was not in insolvent circum-
4..,neia. His clerks had made affidavits to the same
t. The Commission was sued out for a debt of
This debt arose upon a bill of exchange, and
'Y'nich the petitioner contended was satisfied by an
arrangement that had taken place between bins
and the petitioning creditor, and therefore he had
refused again to pay the account.
Mr. KINNERLEY, who appeared to oppose the
Petition, had not been sufficiently instructed, and
c'Tlsequently the advertisement was ordered to be
'Jtayed, and the matter to come on this day week.

A WARD.-COMMITMENT.

BURCHETT V. WOOLVARD.

This case was fully discussed on Tuesday, in his
Lordship's private room, when Mrs. Burchett was
ordered to be discharged, the subject with respect to
the rest of the parties being to be further considered.
To-day his LORDSHIP stated that he had
read the affidavits with the utmost care, and that
he felt bound to commit Messrs. Chitty and Mar-
shall. He did not think a sufficient case had been
made out to anthorise the Court to restrain all corn-
tounication, as prayed, between Mrs. Burchett and
her daughter. The above parties were walked off
to the Fleet in custody.

RECORDER'S REPORT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimate;
that he would
have to the to-day at half-past tvv..elve, to attend the
Itecartkr's Report.

DEW V. CLARE,.
This part heard 'petition was resumed by the At-
e°rneY-General,

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
INJUNCTION.
GOODALL V. HADLEY.
in this case an injunction had been granted to re-
'grain the defendant from invading a patent granted
to the plaintiff in 1825, for extracting white paint
f •
roln native sulphate of barytes, by the action of
acids on it.

Mr. BichIERSTETH moved to-day that the injunc-
tkon might be dissolved, on the grounds that the
'process which was claimed as his invention by the
Pkintiff, had been known to many other persons,
*-rd oven to the defendant himself, previously
to the date of the patent. The Learned Gentle-
Than proceeded to read the specification of the
'ent, which detailed with a laborious minuteness
,?,very, the mast trifling, part of the process for ex-
-94 . the white paint, but concluded by stating
that the plaintiff only claimed as his invention the
k4e of the acids. The Learned Gentleman next
read an affidavit of the defendant, who is a surgeon
,at Derby, in which it was distinctly sworn, that a Mr.
Sib/ester, an eminent chemist, had communicated
;}!e mode of procuring white paint from barytes to
'llm, in common with many others, before the plain-
tiff had procured his patent.
Mr. PARKER, in support of the injunction, said
k4at the invention of the plaintiff consisted, not alone
'ln extracting the white paint, but in the use of par-
ticular acids by which the iron in barytes was destroyed
and the paint rendered thereby purely white. In-
dependently of this objection to the dissolution of
theinjunction on the merits, the Learned Gentle-
man also took a formal objection to the manner in
which the motion was now made.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that as
the case now stood on both sides, !here were no
6ufticient grounds for continuing the injunction; but
if the plaintiff fancied that he could refute the affi-
davit of tke defendant, his Honour would allow the
matter to be mentioned again next week. This ar-
rangement was acceded to.