The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-05 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 4.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 4.
(Before the Lord Cilixe Ihnott and a Special Jury.)
FRAUD ON THE REVENUE—THE ATTORNEY4IENERAL
v..
the Solicitor-General),
•
stated that this was an information filed at the instance
absencetry no f w. i
Mr.JSRVIS
Of the Attorney-General, to recover penalties from the
defendant, fur importing spirits without making a due
entry and paying the usual duties required by law. An
arrangement had been agreed to between himself, as
representative of the Crown, and- Mr. Wordsworth as
counsel for the defendant, which would save the Court
great deal of trouble. At the same time, in order to
afford a warning to the public, he felt it was his duty to
states few of. the reasons which had induced the At-
torney-General ;to. file, the present information. The
defendant Neville was, during the past year, first mate
on board the Leith, a steam-vessel. belonging to the
General Steam Navigation Company, and plying between
London and ScOtland. The difference in the amount of
duty payable on spirits 'manufactured in England, Scot-
land, and-Ireland, ,afforded great temptation to perions
who were engaged in the coasting trade of the country.
On British spirits .the duty was 7s. 10d. . per
gallon ; on Scotch spirits of a light quality.
3d.' -Bd. ; and for the protection of the revenue,
.bl.sides other regulitions required by the Excise and.
Customs' departments, it was necessary that all spirits
conveyed by coasting-vessels; should' be entered on the
ship's manifest. "Each of these several provisions 'had
been violated in the present:instance, by the defendants.
The specific offence for which a penalty was now to be
taken by consent, was committed on the 26th 'of' De-
cember, 1843;= when the.defetichint, as chief 'mete, coin-
municatedlo.the officer on board the vessel, then lying
at Leith, that be wits goinginto the town to order spirits.
'Tvielye gallons of spirits were sent on board ; but they
'weriostowed, Away; under the- 'defendant's direction, in
'such a Manner is 'to-escape observation. On the arrival
of'the'vesati of ItrOwn's-wharf, 'London, in consequence'
'of informatiow:xeceived.:.by the authorities, a minute
search was-made by-the-officers, and.near, to the paddle
boxes a
,quantity of• spirits .was found stowed away.
Those spirits belonged to the crew. The vessel was
seised ;' but the defendant had the spirits entered on the
sbii's. manifest., :'for 'the purpose of protection. At
:that tithe the defendant's own spirits had not
been discovered. The vessel proceeded on her outward
voyage, and when she had arrived. off Gravesend, the
spirit was discovered, arranged in such a manner as
clearly proved that it was intended to be " run" on shore.
Under these circumstances proceedings were instituted
by the Crown...-The defendant had now agreed ' that a
verdict, should be given against him for one penalty,
which verdict the jury would then have to return.
Mr. WORDSVORTH, for the defendant---It is true that
'we have consented to a verdict for One penalty ; but on
the part Of my client I feel it to be my duty to state that
he not at all acquiesce in the truth of the statement
made by my Learned Friend. So far, indeed, from it.
Mr. JERVlA.(proceeding to open his brief)—The case
must go, then, to the jury. The Crown cannot possibly
take the verdict if the defendant be not guilty.
.Mr. WonnswOnTst—We have agreed to a verdict, but
we certainly do not acquiesce in your statement of facts.
The LORD CHIEF •BARoN—It 18, I think, greatly to
be lamented that any supposed state of facts has been
submitted, if the case is still to proceed, for such a state-
ment must have a tendency to embarrass the j
ury.. I do
not know (addressing Mr. Wordsworth) whether you
mean to deny that there has been a breach Of the re.
venue laws ?

- Mr. WORDSWORTIE--By 110 Moans, my Lord.
Mr. JEnvis—The case must go on. If not guilty, why
should you pay a pepalty ?
Td h
*.penaltyean
oBARON_Your agreeing to a verdict
import' a breach of the revenue
an
laws. I did not understand Mi. Jervis to state anything
LCouulgEhYt
to
ISOM.
Mr. JEnvis—l shall go on.
•

WoapswoaTu.--:There is no occasion. If my
Lord understood your statement only to import What his
Lordship states, we are satisfied.
The LORD Cum BARON (very emphatically)—r trust
the misfortune •wbich has occurred to the. administration
of justice- to-day by. this misunderstanding will never
occur again.
The jury then returned a verdict for the Crown, with
one penalty. Verdict accordingly.
IMPORTANT ARRANGEMENT. •
In the course of the morning, the Lord Chief Baron
took anopportunity of informing the. Bar that- he had
determined no
.common jury cases should in future be.
.set &sin for hearing in the same paper, and on the same
,
diy, as. special jury ones. This new arrangement might
.perhaps cause, here and there, a part df a diy to be a
void ;- but this'Jle looked upon as a less evil than the
present one, which detained suitors. and witnesses from
day to day at great inconvenience and enormous expense,
and which frequently was a squrce also- of great ember-
ressment to counsel. Henceforward, then, common
juries should have days to themselies, and special juries
gdareynantlothoefaisel
justv'ecO ThmplaientPreevvearilsining(.lesysthtsem.tihmade
of
ffibLorderdd
Ellentiorough, and .he felt it his duty to the public and
the Bar to provide a remedy for it.
. Mr. Jervis, Mr. Martin, Mr. Humphrey, and, other
members of the bar, severally intimated theirapproval
of this new arrangement, which. wetild'be alike a great
laving to the public, and a great convenience to the bar.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 3.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
WOODCROFT V..RETNER AND AROTHER.
This case, which is important to the manufacturing
districts, and has occupied nearly three days, when
divested of all ihe technicalities 'belonging to the
process of weaving, is an exceedingly simple one.
The action was brought for the intringement of the
plaintiff's patent right in what is called a tappet,
which is an instrument used in looms for determining
the pattern of figured or.fancy cloths. The tappet in
Use before the plaintiff's, and usually called Bowman's
tappet, consisted-.of a number of solid circular plates
with prominences, causing the requisite elevation or
depression of the warp threads, and, when a new pat-
tern had to be made, it was requisite generally to pur-
chase new plates, or recast the old ones. :The plaintiff
conceived the idea of dividing these plates into sec-
tions corresponding with each other, so as to be trans-
posable and form a new tappet plate, and thus to
effect ,an almost infinite variety of patterns out
ofdhe same plates by merely transposing the sections,
without breaking up the plates. The plaintiff al-
leged that the defendants had borrowed the idea of
their tappet from the,patent tappet, and that it was a
mere mechanical equivalent, identical in principle.
After the case had been fully investigated, the jury
retired; to consider their verdict, and, after they had
r
been absent nearly two hours, a proposal was made on
the part of the defendants, which ultimately resulted
in a verdict being taken for the plaintiff, with 40s.
damages.
The CHIEF JUSTICE at once gave his certificate
that the merits of the case had been fully investigated.
Bzwcaturn 4.
This was an metro:Tot:zany.
infringementt
of a
pataat,
and the only matter of interest involved in it was the
manner in which the plaintiffs became possessed of the
patent alleged to be infringed. It appeared that Mr.
William Thornton Car formerly kept a mill at, Black-
heath, where he carried:on experiments in the improve-
ment of carding machines. In 1841-he invented
paratus for card settin an ap-
g, and obtained the patent in quel
lion. Having borrowed a sum of money and de oilied.
P
the patent as security for repayment in a given time, he
was unable to pay at the expiration of that period, and
consequently. the patent leas forfeited. The trial will
occupy more than one day.
Cog"

"OuRT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 4.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN RE SAXES GIBBS.
The Court was crowded during the morning by per.
sons anxious to hear- the tuither revelations likely orbit
made in this extraordinary case, which it may be re-
membered by our mien, was, after the lut mains.

BA/1M V. WAGLITAFFE.--JUDOHRNT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in 'this appeal
to-day, affirmiug the decision of the Court below.

. IN RE THE PRINCpIS BANIATINSEI.
The further arguments in this part-heard lunatic pe-
tition occupied the Court the remainder of the morning.

COURT OF REVIEW,
-Dee. 4.
His Horroun sat to-day in. Bankruptcy as Chief Judge
of the Court of Review, and disposed of. bankrupt
petitions.
His Hotioua after Wards in' Equity took the motion in
the cage of " Malines u. Price," part heard. It is a
motion to extend an undertaking that had been given by
the defendants ; and if they:refused that they might be
restrained by an injunction of the Court from working
their Mines according to the system of " patching."

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Die. 4.
(Sittings at, Nisi Prius, before Lord Durtme.st and a
Middlesex Common Jury.)
DWG AND OTHER. v. WORILMA.N.
This
.
was an action brought by Messrs. Bigg and Son,
the stationers, of Parliament-street, to recover an amount
of 1351. 9s. for work 'and labour done. The defendant
pleaded that there'were others indebted with him, whose
names were set forth in the pleadings; and who ought to
be sued with him:
Mr. Whately and Mr. noggins appeared for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Knowles for`the defendant.
It appeared that, towardeqhe latter part of 1841, or
the beginning of 1842, an attempt was made to establish
ajoint-stoCk Company, to
.be called the London and
Weitminiter Metropolitan Water Company, of which
'the defendent 'was one of the directors. The plaintiff
hid been employed to print prdSpectuses, &c., and they
had brought an itction. against defendant for the whole
amOunt The defence was that the defendant was not
solely liable, and witnesses were called to
.prove that the
persons named in die plea, viz., the rest of the directors,
were jointly liable with him. Lord Denmun, however,
was of 'opinion that the 'proof of the plea failed; iin4 the
jury found for plaintiff—Daniages, 135/. 9s.
Before sitting at Nisi Prius this morning, the Court
guve judgment in the,case, exparte Partington, a writ of
habeas corpus which had been moved fur during the
term in the Bail Court. The circumstances of the case
were fully reported at the time. The judgment of the
Court this morning was, that 'the defendant should be
remanded back to his original custody.