The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-20 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

In this case WILSON V. TUNSTALL.
the plaintiffs were the patentees of a cer-
d, manufacture of candles, which candles were pro-
fetteed from oil extracted from the cocoa nut. The de-
klielant was a candle .rnanufactnrer from the same
uDnatenrial, and the plaintiff had obtained an injunction
eathe defendant to prevent him manufacturing such
den from such materials. Since that injunction had
fa obtained, the defendant had recommenced manii-
vde,tjlring the same kind of candles, in consequence of
leh this, the second suit, was instituted. It was al-
-tg„e,,d,; on the part of the defendant, that although the
candles manufactured by him were produced from
mater extracted from the cocoa-nut, yet the
4,-"er was not the substance from which the plaintiffs
tha!mfactured their candles, and for which they obtained
wieilieel.Patent. He further alleged, that the process by
new 11, the plaintiffs obtained their material was not
'',eing obtained by means of the hydraulic pressure,
tr4eillod known for years to those connected with the
he dewe The defendant also put in an affidavit, in which
restyled: that he had not violated the injunction
by his Lordship against him for the pyrpose of
atnin in the manufacture of cocoa nut oil
g- lin
r; es, inasmuch as he had discovered a new and ori-
tTo4:lPjoeess, by_ which he could produce, by one opera-
' t,ue solid and fluid oil from the cocoa nut, and which
134,Pitii4iffs knew not of. It
.was contended, on the
ths °' the plaintiffs, that this was but a quibble oa
tff'''()lscis in the injunction, and which could not
tweet khe injunction in its operation against the defend-
tit7 tthe admitted that which the injunction alleged,
which at. he had made candles from the said oil, and
tlbta-,.-illjunction never referred at all to the means of
Ivhini,,nlll7.g that oil, but merely referred to the process to
fend that oil was to be applied ; and therefore the de-
g thlnt clearly had violated that injunction in contempt
plaihr Qum, and also Violated the patented right of the
oftcters Obtained by them for the exclusive manufacture
that
11e Said cocoanut oil candles, and by which the value of
lit,, nt right was in danger of being rendered a nul-
A" r,-s:ttiiis the interest of the plaintiffs was concerned.
thattkest 'number of affidavits were put in to prove
witolle on extracted from the cocoa nut was identical
it4w, that used by the plaintiffs, although called by
t,tr‘oernatrie by. defendant. Although the processes for
plaille.ting it were'different as used by the defendant and
iu .ntitTs,
„ yet, when extracted, the oil was the same in
faei'S Points as that used by the plaintiffs in the mann-
ttire of their patented cocoa nut oil candles.
r; Pemberton was heard on the part of the plaintiffs,
Attorney-General for the defendant.
to e argnments were being continued when we went
Press, and were likely to last the wholeof he day.
VI

,e,E-CHANCERY,—(THIS DAY.)
k-oefore the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND)
heariS n°NOUR was occupied during the morning with
Ti_ng some motions which possessed no interest.
ne Court rose at a few minutes after 12 o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
MTh DOWNER V. PARKINSON.
bill in this part-heard cause was filed on behalf of
tht:tY, John, and Martha Bowmer, who were infants, by
u- •
nearest friends, against Mrs. Parkinson and others,
Mates,
in trust of the testator's real and personal
4tes a •
and , an against Mary Bowmer, the testator's widow
,_,!ner husband, who were appointed executors by the
Wettur's will. John Bowmer, one of the above-
„l,l,ioned infants, was the heir-at-law.
,o,tn bill prayed the usual accounts of the real and per-
-4174 estate, and sought to charge the defendants, the
ito,itees• with wilful default, both as regarded the real
sia',Personal estate. The testator, by his will, had de-
h lett to Parkinson and others all his freehold and copy-
o
f estates, chattels, &c., to be held by them on trust,
her tl , benefit of his wife, Mary Bowmer, during
Ale, provided she remained unmarried, and took
4 91', and maintained, his children ; and after her de-
olllse, the property to be divided among his children as%
b.!) should direct by her will. In case his wife married
the testator directed that she should no longer
teitttate any power over his property ; and if she died in-
te, the trustees were to divide the property amongtua children in equal shares. The will also contained a
ter, for the benefit of the family, of sale or mortgage.
testator died in 1832, and the will was proved by the
executors in March 1833. In January, 1836, the widow
katried, and, consequently, her interest in the property
used. Immediately on her marriage, the stock on the
stator's farm was sold, and no steps had been taken by
the trustees according to the trust imposed on.them in
events that had happened. The widow and her
riland had been permitted to continue in possession
ehatrne property and were so permitted, as the bill
th,,ged, only because the trustees did not take upon
at;"elveS the duties -imposed on them • neither had
wiao ounts whatever been required by them from the
tor',,,dr4 the real and personal estates from the testa-
iri th:ttb to the present titne. It was also set forth
for bill- that there was abundant property
sale 6-,` the purposes of the will, without any
ettt loortgage ; that the trustees had neglected to
444 %Ilt° possession and that there were various sums,
tegtlis eY of 6001., payable to the testator's estate,
PlaiAti'"eY had neglectedlo get R. According to the
Ike "4' Counsel the answer put in by the trustees
the
'ter ed to this,--that --that they had done nothing at all in
for a—lt of the trust. The present application was
414,3413ecial inquiry, reserving the question of default.
as to the
thought that he should direct an inquiry
auo ne circumstances under which no account had been
Nal: from the widow respecting the legacy
_and
Va im and that, as the heir-at-law was an infant,
and iferrogatory should be exhibited to profe the will,
Pro,: the Master should find the will proved, he should
armed with the ordinary administrative accounts, that
Nilliquiry should be made by whom the Children were
kfte
w- fr lirt,akilled since the testator's death, as well before as
ahoe marriage of the widow, and that the Master
aPPoint a guardian in the usual way.
Seated 81'ENcE, who appeared for the plaintiffs, sug-
thoZ that in addition to the common accounts, there
teF,to be an inquiry as to who was in possession of the
his -ttic'es real and personal estates from the time of
eath to the present, and under what cir-
Perhsta,4ce and whether any part of the pro-
-4134,118419been let out, and by and to whom. With re-
clairp:° the personal estate, that the Master should in-
atAoci.and report whether there was any portion of it out-
-14%,,,111,F, why it had not been got in, and whether any
tt in-e'ings had been taken for the purpose of getting
k 04.- • 'o'rxixa, who appeared for the trustees, and Mr.
toittortT for the widow and her husband, having ad
%fleet, - plaintiffs' right to a decree to the above
)4114 110 hst.. NOUR accordingly directed a reference to the
on those points.
N., , (Before Vice-Chancellor WicitAst.)
-ase of any public interest came before the Court.
kr THE NEW APPOINTMENTS.
44;,!-lOUvell, Mr. Anderdon, end Mr. Wigram, were
;;:m within the bar.

3
QU;

BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
HALL V. FEARNLEY.
fight was a case which was tried before Mr. Justice
action two days since in the Bail Court. It was an
ror r brought to recover damages against the defendant
Liek„4„itilg, with his cart, run over the plaintiff, and
ais leg. The verdict was for the defendant
now moved for a rule nisi to set aside
Onti,e A rtliet, and to have a new trial granted on the
of
-misdirection by the Learned Judge, and also
The
ground that the verdict was against evidence.
e COURT took time"to consider its judgment.
In
ti• THE QUEEN V.'GREEN.
defend IS case a rule had been obtained, calling upon the
turn ant to show cause why an information in the na-
te shof a quo warrant° should not be filed against him,
q w by what authority he exercised the office of a
Councillor of the borough of lichfield.
ti?„- c SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared to show cause
115 t the rule. The main objection taken by the
wed Counsel wag that the relator was not a good
4be-is`cr, and not properly qualified, inasmuch as
ribn,mall taken part in the election, and had thereby
i,sub:tibuted to the irregularity which was here the
fleet 4,4 of the motion before the Court. It was also ob-
Au eti 'that the defendant had not acted as a Town C0nn-
,14.11! after his full space of nearly twelvemonths, and just
I:tip Ile term of his office was about to expire the present
klPsuebation was made to the Court. The Learned Coun-
eu mitted that Under these circumstances the rule
tit to be discharged.
- the 1.• JEavis in support of the rule, contended that
~,,triieniireblartinogir
1111:d not taken that part in the election
tro ell Was 4ow disputed, which would disqualify him
the case before the Court, inasmuch as
v4_ declaration administered by him to the defendant
ttel:rtnenderecl after the election had terminated. The
tine, •ed Counsel referred to several cases bearing on the
which such interference was not held to dis-
Thry the relator.
by the
t ,COURT was of opinion that the objection urged
oolicitor-General to the rule was a good one, and
Prioei Pircvail. Their decision was founded upon the
Pam, lhat the man who concurred in inducing the
1v1,4 complained against to do that act, was not the man
°VA to be heard in that Court for the purpose of
the oillg nita out. If the act was merely a Ministerial one,
it w ilection might not, perhaps, be of such force, but it
upon ",,Id appear to be something more. The relator called
ratio- u'a defendant to take and subscribe a certain decla-
eitio 11, which would entitle him to act as a Town Conn-
' and the defendant agreed to do that, thereby in-
o%-g him to suppose that he had a good title to the
fou:d,_,The principle upon which their decision was
ti( 17, was based upon something higher than Corpora-
the i 'v, and it was that no man could take advantage of
vt:. ?o:insistent act in which he had concurred. The act
isit4tile entitled the defendant to the office, was the decla-
ad2in he had made—the relator was the party who had
tTnistered that declaration to him, and he could not
ew yome before the Court to set it in motion against
self T-a'feedant fur that very irregularity which he him-
butbut". d created. The rule therefore must be discharged,
Without costs.
y 1 OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—DA.RBON V. ROSSER.
ti ,1
athis case, which excited some interest in the sit-
,;Ylie ter last Term, and in which a rule had been sub-
f° moved for
on the r to set aside the verdict, 1,6001.,
b
AZ% excessiv plaintiff,
ground of the damages
an% TILESIGER stated to the Court that his Learned

Friend, Mr. Platt, and himself had agreed to certain
terms, which would save their Lordships the trouble of
having the case again brought before them.
Lord DENiiN expressed his satisfaction at the ar-
rangement.
The terms were not stated in the Court, but we under-
stand the arrangement come to was, that the verdict be
reduced to 8501.