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

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. THE ♦UDITOR OF BURNLEY UNISON.
In this case Mr. Ilill moved for 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 he was bound to do. In this case the
auditor was also the solicitor of the parish, and be 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 at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WILLIAM.
DILLS 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 paymtnt
of which the present action was brought were supplied to
defendant's family in the course of the years 1842, 1843,
and 1844, the purchasers 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 ono 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. WEBSTER AND OTHERS.
In this case, which was tried last week at Guildhall,
before the Lord Chief Baron, verdict by cons-nt for the
plaintiff, the Solicitor-General moved for a rule to show
cause ,why a nonsuit shoulii 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 for making such ropes ; the
declaration being in the usual form. 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 13.!ing 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 purpose 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 fotta, 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 upon 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 bobbin-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 for 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-rape 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.
RICHARDS V. MACET.
This case was tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at
Westniinster, on the 4th of December last, and a verdict
found for the defendant. It was an action for a promis-
sory note for 1001.,
and arose out of the state of the
affairs of the Marylebone Bank.
Mr. JEavls now moved for a rule for a new trial, on
,he ground of misdirection.
The COURT postponed its decision.

COMMON PLEAS.—('rms DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
Their Lordships this day gate judgment in the follow
ng cases:--

PONTIFER v. WILKINSON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are
coppersmiths, against the (lefendant, a builder, to recover
the price of a large boiler set up by them under his
directions, in the house of a gentleman in the country,
for whom the defendant was employed.
The defence was that Wilkinson was not liable, not
having given the order to the plaintiffs as upon his own
responsibility, but for and on account of the gentleman
whose agent only he was in the transaction.
The verdict was fur the plaintiffs, but the defendant
subsequently obtained a rule for a new trial, upon which
their Lordships reserved their judgment. The Court
now made the rule absolute, and ordered the case to go
down again for trial.
TYE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V; RW11)1801/1 AND OTHERS.
The plaintiffs 'in this case are proprietors of large
tracts of land in the north of Ireland, adjoining Loughs
Foyle and Swilly. The defendants have severally con-
tracted to drain portions of that land, and this action
was brought against them to recover damages for breach
of contract. The verdict was substantially for the de-
fendants. The plaintiffs, last term, obtained a rule nisi
for a new trial, upon which,' after a long argument, in
which several sergeants were engaged on both sides, the
Court reserved judgment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE now gave judgment for the
new trial, and made the rule absolute.
GRANT v. HUNT.
This was an action against the Southampton Bank
on a bill of exchange accepted for them, but refused on
presdntation. The defence was that the acceptor had
not the defendants' authority. The facts of the case did
not come very fully before the Court in the first instance,
but were referred to Mr. Sergeant Shea, from whom
they came before the Court as a special case, which was
argued in Trinity Term. Their Lordships now gate
judgment for the plaintiff.
Their Lordships then took the new trial paper.
PHILLIPS V. IRVING.
This was an action for breach of contract in the sup-
plying of a large quantity of copper coin for the Mexican
Government. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and Sir
T. Wilde now obtained a rule nisi for a new trial. The
facts will be more conveniently reported when the rule
comes on for argument. They were fully reported at the
time of the trial, but as they are
briefreference to
will again be expedient.
WEBB V. BEVAN AND OTHERS.
This was an action for trespass and forcible entry. It
was tried before Mr. Justice Erle at the sittings after
the last term, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff,
damages 25/. The following is a brief
barri statement of the
facts :—Mr. Bevan, who is a Chancery ster, kept
horses at the livery stables of Mrs. Savage, in Fetter-
lane, a person named Stockers having acted for sonic
time as foreman of the establishment. For a
considerable time this person appeared to have
enjoyed the confidence both of his mistress, Mrs. Savage,
and of her customers; but at the period when the pre-
sent cause of contention arose, he no longer possessed
their good opinion. Mr. Bevan having determined to
sell one of his horses. desired Mrs. Savage to send the
animal to Tattersall's for that purpose. Subsequently
to his giving instructions on this poir.t, Mrs. Savage had
occasion to go into the City ; but, before doing
so, she distinctly told Stockers and others that
Mr. Bevan's horse should not bo taken aut