The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVEN G, JANUAR V la ISIS

• Shields, I;'hich was assisted off the Scroby Sand, on the
9th instant, left the Roads this morning, but has put
back leaky, and has come into the harbour.
ARBROATH, JAN. 11.—The North Esk, Sim, from
Gray smouth, in entering this harbour, yesterday, was
struck by a sea, thrown against the jetty, and eubie,
quently foundered in the inner harbouf\
STROMNBSS, &:c.—Sld. Bernard, Ichaboe.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The LORD CHANCXLLOR sat at Westminster to-day,
and heard lunatic petitions, none of which were of any
public interest,

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CRANCELLOR o ENGLAND.)
His HONOUR heard ealise petitions to-day.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
MAY V. BRIPWORTIS.

This case was opened before the recess, and has been
argued on several occasions. The bill is filed by the
coheiresses of Mr. Thomas Stoddart, to set aside a deed
-X compromise, whereby they parted with property in
Lincolnshira, for a sum of money alleged to have been
greatly below the value of their interest. The bill con-
tains allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and sur-
prise. The arguments again occupied the Court fer the
greater part of the day.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. THE ♦UDITOR OF BURNLEY UNION.

In this case Mr. Hill moved f.,r a rule for a certiorari
to bring up the accounts of the auditor of the Burnley
Union, with a view to their being quashed. The pre-
sent application was made on behalf of the Great
Western Railway Company, who objected to a certain
charge in the accounts ; and the principal ground of the
application was, that the auditor had refused to assign
the reasons why he had come to the conclusions to which
he arrived, as be was bound to do. In this case the
auditor was also the solicitor of the parish, and he had
therefore to audit, as auditor, the accounts which he
drew up as solicitor. It was his duty, and the duty of
the parish officers, to make application to the Commis-
sioners to appoint a special auditor to undertake the
duty.—Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings et Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)

HILLS V. KENDALL.

This was an action to recover 421. 2s. 3d., for goods
sold and delivered. Defendant pleaded that he was not
indebted.

Mr. Platt and Mr. Bagley were for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Watson and Mr. Creasely for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT, in opening the case, said that the plain-
tiffs were tradesmen in Regent-street, and dealt in
gloves and hosiery and other finery. The defendant was
an architect of considerable celebrity, residing in
Suffolk-street when in town, and in Kemp-town
at those seasons more applicable for coun-
try recreations. The articles for the paymcnt
of which the present action was brought were supplied to
defendant's family in the course of the years 1842, 1843,
and 1844, the put chasers being the defendant's wife, son,
and daughter. Mr. Kendall had frequently accompanied
them to the shop, and was, therefore, conscious that they
dealt there. It was but natural to infer then that he
was equally conscious that the articles he observed worn
by his family, and which were not settled for by him,
must have been had from the premises of the Messrs.
Hill. The daughter, who was designated " a
child " in one of the defendant's solicitor's letters
was, he might remark to the jury, a young lady of
twenty-one years of age, and therefore not the mere
child they might otherwise suppose her. Among the
items supplied they would find silk hose, gloves, with
here and there a feather, and on one occasion a silk
dress, which was seen upon the young lady at a time
when her father was in company. It would certainly,
he thought, be a monstrous injustice if a father could,
upon the plea of his child being unauthorised to contract
these debts, seek to defraud the tradesmen, when an in-
quiry upon his pert would at once have shown how the
articles were obtained, and when bills had been regularly
sent to his house upon every succeeding Christmas. He
would proceed to call witnesses to prove the case.
Evidence was then gone into to prove the various
sales, and was not concluded when we went to press.

EXCHEQUER —(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco )
NEWHALL V. WEBSTEN. AND OTHERS.

In this case, which was tried last week at Guildhall,
before the Lord Chief Baron, verdict by cons, nt fur the
plaintiff, the Solicitor-General moved for a rule to show
cause why a nonsuit should not be entered upon leave
reserved for that purpose by the Learned Judge, and
also for a new trial upon the ground of misdirection. It
was an action for the infringement of a patent
for certain improvements in wire-ropes, and
in the machinery fur making such ropes ; the
declaration being in the usual term. The defendants
had a variety of pleas, the general plea being that they
were not guilty of the alleged infringement. The date
of the patent was the 7th of August, 1840, the specifi-
cation being enrolled on the 6th of February, 1841. It
appeared from the evidence that, at a period long prior
to the letters patent granted to the plaintiff, hempen ropes
had been made by means ofmachinery. Ofcourse the fibres
were twisted in the first place into yarns, and the yarns
made into strands, for the purpoe of forming the rope.
Two machines were used, one called a stranding ma-
chine, the other a laying machine. The stranding
machine was used for the purpose of laying the yarns
into strands ; the laying machine for that of laying the
strands into ropes. The material being of a soft de-
scription, in forming the strands it was considered
important that a twist should be given in
order to harden the rope. His principal
object was to direct attention to the laying machines,
used for the purpose of laying the strands into ropes.
For a long time anterior to the plaintiff's patent it had
been considered a desideratum that the machines should
be so constructed as to prevent a twist in the strand, and
enable the rope to bear a greater stress. The laying
machines were of a circular form, containing in general
three bobbin-frames, it being more usual to make three-
stranded rope than rope of any other description. In order
to prevent the twist in the strands, it was necessary that
the wheels open which the bobbin-frames revolved should
have a counteracting motion, exactly corresponding to
the motion of the whole machine in the contrary direc-
tion, so that the bobbia-frames should always present
the same face. It was proved distinctly that the defen-
dants themselves had long had in their manufactory ma
chinery of this description, that is, machines fur prevent-
ing the twisting of the strand, and that such machines
had been used in the last century. The claim
which the plaintiff made was the manufacture of un-
twisted wire-rope, and also of wire-rope in which a core
was placed between the strands and the ropes. The
Learned Counsel then described at length the peculiar
nature of this invention, and referred to the specifica-
tion in support of his motion. The substance of the
complaint on the part of the plaintiff was, that machinery
had been used for making hempen ropes which produced
the same effect as his invention —Rule granted.