The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-02 00:00:00

RUBERY V. BARRS.-INJUNCTION.

Mr. TaID, with whom was Mr. Tooke, applied, upon no-
tice, for a special injunction to restrain the defendant from
invading a patent, obtained by the plaintiff, for the manu-
facture of top tips for umbrellas. It appeared, from
the statements of the Learned Counsel, that both
plaintiff and defendant were umbrella manufacturers in
Birmingham ; that the plaintiff obtained a patent, in 1837,
for the manufacture of a peculiar description of top-tips for
umbrellas, and that in 1841, upon discovering that the defen-
dant was making &similar article, he brought an action against
him in consequence of his infringement of his rights. To that
action the defendant pleaded that the invention was not nem,
and that it was useless. Upon the action being tried the
jury found that the invention was novel and useful,
but that the plaintiff was not the first inventor. The plaintiff
then disclaimed to certain parts of his specification, and thus
matters stood till a short time since, when the plaintiff discovered
that the defendant was manufacturing articles similar to those
manufactured by him under his amended patent, and upon that
discovery he filed his bill and gave notice of the present appli-
cation.

Mr. SWANSTON opposed the application, on the ground that
the plaintlf knew well of the pioceeilings of the defendant,
and that the defendant had a right to do what he had done, inas-
much as the patent wa invalid.
His HoNous declined making any order until more explicit
affidavits were filed with respect to the time when the plaintiff
first discovered that the defendant was making the articles, for
the manufacture of which the plaintiff claimed the exclusive
right. The motion consequently stands over till the termina-
tion of the long vacation.

His HONOUIt will not sit aga'n till the first day of Michael-
mas

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Se.q. I.
(B4'ore Mr. Commissioner PANE..)
IN RE GLASS AND JONES.

The Learned Commiss-oaer was occupied a con-
siderable time in li,,sriog urguiveirs in this case (~n
summons being obtained iind3r the New Bankruptcy
Law, on which to found proceedings in bankruptcy.

The affidavit set forth that the defendant wa; the
drawer of a certain bill of exchaoge which had been
dishonoured by the acceptor, arid had been plod by
the plaintiff; who was indorser.
For the defendant it was contended that the affidavit
was insuffi,Aent for the defendant to be called upon to
make any answer, as it did not aver that due notice hail
been given, without which no debt arose. In reply it
was urged that an affidavit like the present was sufficient
even in calling on persons to put in bail.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that in cases of bail
the mischief was not so great as under this Act—it
certainly affected a person's liberty, but he did not
have the whole of his property forfeited as under
the bankrupt law. lie did not consider he was called
upon to decide on such nice points as these, without
text book or authorities. It was the duty of the plain-
tiff to be prepared with them, for he, as a Commissioner
of Bankrupt, did not understand the law of bail, nor was
it expected that he should.
The plaintiff's solicitor said that the want of notice, if
it had not been given, was a defence to the action, and
the defendant could easily swear he bad a defence, and
then there would be an end to the summons._

The Learned COMMISSIONER said the plaintiff was
first bound to sh,)w that the defendant WAS indebted,
and the question was whether the affidavit made out
that fact sufficiently to call on the defendant to answer
it. Theee proceedings were of deep importance, as now
payment of the debt, if admitted, was an act of bank-
ruptcy. After referring to several cases the Learned
C•tminissioners said that it was true, as had.been suggest-
ed, that the notice of dishonour need not be alleged even
in the declaration, as non-notice was a defence, but in that
case there was no direct interference with personal
liberty. It had been held by the Judges as a genera!
principle, that where a question arises as to the liberty
of the subject, the person setting the law in motion was
bound to make out a clear case of right on his part. The
inclination of his mind was that the affidavit ~as insuf-
ficient, and that the Courts would require a grt ater de-
gree of ceriaint, when such serious consequences would
ensue. An old case of Davidson and Marsh, in the Com-
mon Pleas, had been quoted, in which it had been held
that an affidavit stati';g that a party was indebted as in-
dorsee, without evi n alleging the bill became due, was
sufficient. In that case he supposed that the swearing
the person was indt-btcd was taken to comprise every
thing else. The case of Jone: amid Collins, 6 Dowling,
a more modern case, was just the revere. Under these
circumstances he would not decide the matter unless a
case in point, or some text book on the law, was pro-
duced.— The hearing was wijeurned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY )
MANSION-HO USE.

THE LATE FRACAS AT THE EAST INDIA

HOUSE

At one o'clock Sir Henry Willock, Chairman of the East
India Company, appeared before the Lord Mayor to answer a
complaint preferred against him, at the instance of Mr. Peter
Gordon, for an assault committed in causing his expulsion fr..m
the chairman's chair at a meeting of the proprietors of the
East India Stock, held on Saturday,the •23,1 August last. The
case which had been partially heard on a previous day, an an..
c..unt of which appeared in the Sun, has caused considerable
excitement in the City, and particularly amongst the proprie-
tors, directors, and others connected with the East India House.
The Court was literally crowded with the friends of both
parties. On the bench were Sir Lionel Gnldsmid, Sir Henry
%Villock, Mr. Hogg, M.P., the Deputy-chairman, and several
of the directors of the East India House.

Mr. Clarkson, the barri,ter, appeared on the part of Sir
Henry Willock, and Mr. Parry on the part of the com-
plainant.
The LORD MAYOR, having taken his seat, inquired of Mr.
Gorden if he was ready to proceed with the case? Mr.
Gordon-_7I am, my Lord.

Mr. Clarkson understand my friend Mr. Parry is in-
structed to appear for the complainant, and I have no wish to
take any advantage of his absence, ani would suggest waiting
a reasonable time, if Mr. Gordon has no reason to believe he
will not attend.

Mr. Gordon—l expected to have seen him here.
Mr. Parry having entered the Court, considerable delay took
place in obtaining the attendance of a second magistrate to
enable an adjudication.
Alderman .goon having entered the Court,
Mr. Parry proceeded briefly to stat: the facts out of which
the assault arose. Mr. Gordon, being a proprietor of stock of
1,0001., the value of which is 2,8001., attended a special meet-
ing of the proprietors, convened, according to a requisition
signed by Sir Charles Forbes, General Briggs, and others, to
consider the claims of the Raja of Sattara, held on the 23d of
August, by adjournment from the previous day. The meeting
was appointed for ten o'clock, but at half-pa.t. nine Mr. Gordon
attended, and placed himself in the chairman's chair. At ten
o'clock Sir Henry Willock, the chairman, entered the
Court, with Mr. Hogg and a body of the Directors,
and proceeded to where Mr. Gordon was sitting.
Sir H. Willock then somewhat sharply desired him to vacate
the chair. M:. Gordon rose and said if it was the desire of
the Proprietors that he should do so he would at once comply,
and moved on one side of the chair. Mr. George Thompson,
a Proprietor, then proposed Sir H. Willock should take the
chair, which was seconded by Mr. Gordon, upon which Mr.
Hogg protested against that motion being put, as Sir H. Wil-
lock was entitled to the chair as a matter of right, as Chair-
man of the East India Company. Sir Henry Willock also
refused to be voted in the chair, and claimed it as a right,
upon which Mr. Gordon re-took the chair. Sir Henry
Willock again requested him to vacate the chair, or he should
be comp-lb-d to use force to compel him. Mr. Hogg also ad-
vising his being removed, ultimately a constable of the name of
Wilson was called, who took Mr. Gordon by the arm and re-
moved him from the chair towards the door. Mr. Gordon
requested to be taken to prison or before a magistrate, but the
constable said he had nothing further to do with it, and Mr.
Gordon ultimately remained in the room ; this was the assault
complained of.
Mr. Gordon having been called, and deposed to those facts,
Mr. Clarkson, at considerable length, cross-examined him. to
show that it had been a previously arranged movement, with a
view to test his right as a Proprietor ; and in the course of
which Mr. Gordon admitted he had writ ten and got printed a
number of hand-bills, which he had distributed without any
printer's name to them, reflecting upon the Directors, and
which Nlr. Clarkson designated as a libel.
Mr. George Thompson was also called to prove the same
facts, and, on cross-examination by Mr Clarkson, stated Mr.
Gordon had told him he intended to pursue the course he had,
and he ('lr. Thompson) advised him not, to prevent confusion,
as he was deeply interested in the matter that would be brought
under discussion.

Mr. Clarkson said he seriously asked the Lnrd Mayor if he
called upon him, on behalf of Sir Henry Willock, to answer so
trumpery a charge? It was clear that Mr. Gorden had him-
self no vote, and that he was an intruder in taking the chair,
not having been requested or elected to the chair. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding to make some very strong re-
marks upon the conduct and motives of Mr. Gordon, when he
was stopped by the Lord Mayor.
The LORD MAyon—l perfectly agree with my brother
Magistrate, that Mr. Gordon was himself an intruder, and that
the case must be dismissed.—ilism;ssA accordingly.
Mr. Clarkson applied for a certificate of the dismissal.
Mr. Parry said the matter would not end there, as there
were other Proprietors who were determined to try the ques-
tion as to the right of the chairman to take the chair without
the consent of the proprietors.
BOW-STREET.

James Hawes was placed at the bar before Mr. Twy-
ford, upon the following charge :
Policeman F 143, said that about ten o'clock last night
he saw the prisoner in Holborn, talking with a woman,
to whom he was thing abusive language. Witness de•
sired him to go on, which he refu=ed to do, and used
abusive language to him, upon which he took him in
charge.
The prisoner asked several questions of the police-
man, on which Mr. Twy ford angrily told him to hold his
tongue. (The witness seemed very anxious to avoid an-
swering the questions )
Mr. TWYFORD asked the prisoner what business he
was ? to which he answered that he was a bricklayer's
lab iurer.

The prisoner was about to make a statement in his
own di,fenc but Mr. Twyford again toll him to hold
his tongue. The prisoner said he could call several
witnesses, who would show that the aggression was
entirely on the part of the policeman. lie was then
about to call one of his witnesses, but admitted that the
person he was about to call first was not one of those
who were present at the time ; wh-reupon Mr. Twyford
said that he could not hear any evidence excqt that
eye-witnesses. The priAouer wisned to call some other
pets-;is. but
Mr. TWYFORD sai 1 he should fine the prisoner
and, in default of payment, send him to prison for
fourteen days.
41/..4.I?LBOROUGH-STREET.

dre;:se•l
Robe. t 13a, j);4, 'died man'
a farm •r's lattturcr, was ch,igt:•l with practisin;i; the
fol.oAing
Polic,-censtabl- 91 A. stated that yestorday after-
noon, he saw the pri.ioner in llyde-pltk, ende;wouring
to excite charity by preten,ling th. 4 he was in very great
pain owing to bnitene,s. Sov-ral persons relieved hits,
but as Iv- was known to bo. an imi,oster he v S tslien
Int cuitody ; wUn, to the ex,r,ffie um.9ni,htn,..nt
several el the bystanders, his lameness was discovered
to be mere pretence, and that he was perfectly able to
walk as well as another person. On searching him, a