The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-13 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF THE HEREFORD CHARITIES.

This was a petition praying the appointment of new
trustees in the room of three that were dead, and who
had resided in France for the last three yeari. On the
application of Mr. Richards, the petition was ordered to
stand over for a fortnight.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GLOUCESTER CHARITIES.

This case was ordered to stand over, in consequence of
the neglect of the parties to furnish his Lordship with
copy of the petition.

IN THE MATTER OF FINNIE, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.

This was a petition presented by Mr. Abraham Finnic.,
the brother of the supposed lunatic, praying for a Com-
mission to inquire into the state of his brother's mind.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, with whom was Mr.
was about to open the petition, when

Mr. WHlT:u.Ansti, who appeared for the wife of the
lunatic, stated that he should not act respectfully to the
Court, after the certificate that had been furnished to
his Lordship by Dr. lleynoll, as to the state of the sup-
posed lunatic's mind, if he did not state that it was not
his intention to oppose the issuing of the Commission,
provided his Lordship thought that certificate satisfactory.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after reading the certificate,
said there could be no doubt as to the state of mind of
Mr. Finnie. The Commission must therefore issue.
Mr. WAKEFIELD and Mr. M'CummE submitted that
the Commission should take place at Liverpool, that
place being the domicile of Mr. Finnie.

Mr. WHITMARSH objected to this, contending that the
supposed lunatic having resided in Park-lane, the Com-
mission ought to take place in London.
There being contradictory affidavits on this point, the
petition was ordered to stand over for a week.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 12.

ALLEN V. CARTER.

In this case an order had been obtained last February
from his Lordship, authorising the marriage of the
plaintiff's sister, she being then under age and a ward
in Chancery. This marriage had not taken place, and
the petition originally instituted by the plaintiff alleged
that it was delayed by the intended husband of the young
lady, in order that the marriage should take place with-
out any settlement being made. It also alleged collusion
against the guardians, and various other charges were
brought against all three. The suit had caused consi-
derable distress to the young lady, who is now but
eighteen, and her family. On the case beilig called on
this morning,
His LORDSHIP said that he had seen the young lady
and her guardian, and he was perfectly satisfied with the
conduct of both. He thought that under the circum-
stances of the case it was right to appeal to the Court, in
consequence of the marriage not-taking place according
to the intentions of the guardian. The reason for post-
poning the marriage, given by the lady herself, seemed
quite satisfactory. His Lordship wished now to express
his opinion in this case, which was, that Allen was not
entitled to one farthing costs, nor should he allow any.
He was perfectly satisfied that it was his conduct which
had caused the distressing circumstances of this case.
When this petition was first brought forward his Lordship
thought it was necessary to explain the reasons why
the marriage had been postponed, and had he (Mr.
Allen) iippped the petition, his Lordship should have
had no lksitation in allowing the costs ; instead of which
he had attributed the circumstance of the case which he
(Mr. Allen) had brought abont, to the grandson and the
intended husband of the young lady. had it been other-
wiFe, his Lordship would have allowed his costs, but
now his order was that no costs whatever should be
allowed. The guardian was most certainly entitled to
his costs—he had undertaken a very arduous office. His
Lordship was very much afraid that this ease must be
characterised as a measure merely to extort money.
Mr. llocEas—l appear for the brother, who has just
come of age—

llls LORDSHIP.—I perfectly understand his position,
and the less you say about it the better.
Mr. ROGERS proceeded to make an application in this
case, relative to the will of the father, whereby 6,Q00/.
was left to the two children, George Allen and Elizabeth
Allen, the young lady above referred to. The interest
of this sum was to be appropriated to the education of
both till they were of age, when it was to be laid out in
stock upon trult, and the above-named to receive the
dividends, after setting aside 2el. a-year. Mr. Rogers
was proceeding with his application, when
Ihs Lonoskur decided that it was not the proper
time to make it, and the case was postponed.

DtV V. CROFT,

In this case Mr. TINNEY made an application to his
Lordship, on the part of the executor to the plaintiff, to
ascertain what' proceedings should be taken to recover
the sum of 1,033/. from the executor, of the Earl of Ros-
common. During the reign of his late Majesty George
IV. a pension of 2001. was granted to Lord Roscommon,
and on the 6th July, 1830, this pension was mortgaged
by Lord Roscommon to the plaintiff, and his Lordship
ferther e mnted to him upon the said pension an annuity
of 100/.'' per annum, enabling the plaintiff to demand
payment of the pension. He (Mr. Tinney) had under-
stood since he came into Court that there was a mistake
in the petition, as it stated that Lord Roscommon was
dead, and it appeared that he was not, although he was
dangerously ill; but this, he apprehended, would make
no -difference, as the sum named was in arrear.
His LORDSHIP—The petition had certainly better be
put right. The part of the receiver is to inquire before
expensive proceedings are instituted.
Mr. TINNEY said they could demand the amount.
His Loansnzp—lt is not a demand until there has
been a refusal to pay ; there might have been neglect
to pay, but no refusal. Has any application been made ?
Mr. TINNEY—Lord Roscommon gave notice that he
intended to dispute the annuity, and object to the pay-
ment. The consequence of this was that Mr. Barry,
the executor's attorney, immediately transmitted to the
treasury in Ireland the deed of mortgage.
Mr. TURNER, for the defendant, said that his Lord-
ship had forestalled his objection, viz., that no applica-
tion had been made by the executors, and the petition
simply stated that it was made upon the ground of the
debt being unpaid. .
Mr. TIERNEY said that Mr. Barry had written to
the Treasurer, in Dublin, and ho replied that Lord Ros-
coMmon disputed the debt.
His LORDSHIP said he' could make no order upon the
petition then, as it stated a fact which was erroneous ;
but if the petition was amended, it seemed to him, as a
matter of course, that they should refer the case to the
Master to know what course should be adopted.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 12.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND);
MORRIS V. VIVIAN AND WILLIAMS.
The further arguments in this case were resumed at
the opening of the Court this morning. It was stated,
on-behalf of the plaintiff, that his mine was in danger
of being completely inundated by the water drained into
it from the .grounds of the defendants. This inconve-
nience had been particularly felt in the month of Octo-
ber and November last, when several hundred gallons
of water per hour passed into the mine. It was con-
tended that the defendants had no right to expose the
property of the plaintiff to the damage and the danger
thus incurred. It Was alleged, on the other side, that
the inconvenience complained "of had existed for many
years, and that the water had been, allowed to pass into
the mine at so early a period as the
.year 1803. It was
also said that the inconvenience was in ordinary seasons
inconsiderable, and that the unusual quantity of water
which flowed into the mine during the months of Octo-
ber and November last was owing to the wetness of the
weather.
'llls HONOUR, in giving his judgment said, that he did
not think it right at present to grant the injunction,
because there was a good deal of obscurity with respect
even to the legal rights of the party. As he understood
the case, the effect of granting the application of the
plaintiff, would be to prevent the defendants from. sink-
ing a pit at any depth they might please in their own
grounds. Now he could not understand that because
the mine of the plaintiff was effected by an excavation
opened long since, no matter by whom, on his grounds,
the defendants should cease to work their mines, or
that they could not originally have opened them. He
could 'not make out' whether it was contended that
there was anything illegal in the act of the defendants—
namely, their sinking a pit in their own soil ; or whether
the damage complained of arose merely from the imper-
fect construction of a dam round their pit. No alarm
had been taken by the plaintiff until the month of Sep-
tember or October last, when it appeared that an unusual
quantity of water had found its way into the mine. But
no one who lived in England, and remembered the wet-
ness of the weather in those Months could feel surprised
at such a fact. It appeared from the affidavits that
water had flowed into the mine from the grounds
of other parties besides those of the defendants ;
and there was no evidence to show how far the incon- '
venience complained of might or might not be owing to
that cause. Before the Court could interfere, he should
have it clearly established that the plaintiff had a legal
right to that protection which he claimed ; and he must
say that that right had not yet-been clearly proved. All
he could do, therefore, was to let the motion:stand over
for the present ; but he would allow the plaintiff to bring
an action at law, by which he might establish his right,
and show the amount of damage he had sustained.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
Several petitions stood on the paper for hearing this
day, the greater portion of which, on being called over,
were struck out, as the parties did not appear in Court.
IN RE THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
The petitioners in this case were the above Company
and John The application was to have a sum
of 1001, now standing to the general account of the
Company in Court, paid to the Secretary of that body.
It appeared that the Company required, for the purposes
of their Act, a certain piece of land, of which the other
petitioner, Gardiner, was the tenant, for a period of ten
years, commencing from October, 1835. It was agreed

between him and the Company, that for his interest in
the land they should pay him 1001. That sum was paid
into Court by the Company, and the prayer of the peti-
tion was, to have it re-paid to them.
TES HONOUR-Ifi you verify the facts which you state
by affidavit, you can take the order.

LADE AND TRILL V. TRILL AND LADE.

This cause, which caine before the Court on a bill and
cross bill, related to certain claims arising out of promis-
sory notes, passed between the parties, and other trans-
actions of a remote date. The arguments engaged his
Honour during the greatek portion of the day, but were
totally devoid of interest.
His HONOUR in the course of the morning announced
to the bar that as it was probable he would not be able
to sit on Saturday next, and therefore that it would be
well to arrange so that those causes which had been
specially appointed for hearing on that day, should be
placed in the list for Monday. It was possible that he
might sit on the former day, but if such should be the
ease he would mention it in Coutt.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WicaAm.)
His Honour was engaged the whole morning in hear-
ing a motion for an injunction on the part of the North
Union Railway Company, against the Bolton Railway
Company. The case for the plaintiff was not concluded
when we went to press. We shall give an outline of the
facts at a more advanced stage.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 12.
DECREASE OF LITIGATION.
At the sitting of the Court this morning, Lord Den-
man called upon all the counsel present, but none of them
had any motions to make, and their Lordships pro-
ceeded to take the new trial paper.
HALLIWELL V. PEAII.3.IAN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
damages for the infringement of a patent for rendering
impervious to water, cotton and other fabrics. The de-
fendant had pleaded several pleas ; first, that the inven-
tion was not a useful one ; second, that the plaintiff was
not the first inventor ; thirdly, that the invention
was not new ; and, fourthly, that the defend-
ant had not infringed the patent. The Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues,
and a rule for a new trial was subsequently moved for,
on the ground that the invention was not new, that the
specification was insufficient, and would not enable par-
ties to carry the invention into effect; and thirdly, that it
was not the proper subject for a patent.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now appeared to show
cause against the rule, and submitted that the only
question which the Court had now to dud& wax
whether the Jury had given a verdict against
the evidence. As to the questions of the
invention not being a useful one, or that it was not
the proper subject of a patent, he believed the evidence
that had been offered at the trial was quite enough to
satisfy their Lordships and the Jury upon these points.
The important discovery in the present case was, that
whereas in the Macintosh-waterproofing the invention
rendered the cloth not only water -proof but air-
tight, and thereby confined the perspiration, in
the plaintiff's patent the fabric was rendered water-
tight without confining the perspiration. The grounds
urged by the defendant, founded on the patent law the
sth and 6th William IV., chap. 83, were that plaintiff
was not the first inventor, and that it was not new ; that •
all the supposed improvements had been previously
publicly known and used by the defendant, and
many other persons. Now he submitted that the
evidence at the trial negatived all these ob-
jections, and, according to the sth section of
the Act, the defendant was precluded from
offering any additional objections of which he had
not previously given the plaintiff notice. The Court
would observe that in the amended patent the plaintiff
had disclaimed any improvement in the water-proofing
of woollens, and had confined himself exclusively to
cottons, and, as regarded these fabrics, no evidence had
been offered that such an invention had ever been pre-
viously applied to them. On these grounds he submitted
that the verdict ought not to be disturbed.
Mr. KELLY for the defendant, submitted that the ver-
dict was one which could not be permitted to stand, in-
asmuch as the application of the ingredients stated in
the plaintiff's patent to be waterproofing of various
fabrics had been well known and extensively used in the
trade for many years previously to the enrolment of the
patent in 1835. The Learned Counsel referred at some
length to the evidence given at the time for the purpose
of showing that the ingredients used by the plain-
tiff were well known and previously used by-
persons for the purpose of rendering woollen
and other fabrics impervious to water, and the only dif-
ference was that the proportions of alum, whiting, and
soap, varied in the patent from those previously used. It
was unnecessary for him to go into the question of the
insufficiency of the specification, because the evidence
was quite satisfactory and conclusive in establishing the
fact that the process, as set forth therein, would not pro-
duce the resu:t which was stated in the letters patent.
The Court took time to consider its judgment.
DAVILLA V. VALMARINO.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange
for 250/., brought by the plaintiff; a picture-
dealer, residing in Leicester-street, Leicester-square,.
against the defendant, a foreign gentleman. The
defendant pleaded no consideration. The case was
tried before Lord Denman, at the sittings after last
Easter Term, and a verdict bad for the defendant,
on the ground of fraud. A rule for a new trial had
been subsequently moved for, on the ground of the ver-
dict being against evidence.
Mr. COCKBURN now appeared to show cause against
thdrule. The Learned Counsel having referred to the
evidence given at the trial was interrupted by
The COURT, who were of opinion that the rule
for a new trial must be made absolute, but
they thought that the ultimate termination of
the case would be the entering of a stet processus, and it
was evident/ that both parties were very poor, and
had no right to be negotiating bills of exchange for so
large an amount.

BAIL COCR7', Jan. 12,

CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE NORTHERN STAR.
THE QUEEN r. F. O'CONNOR AND ANOTHER.

It will be in the recollection of our readers that on the
last day but one of last term the Attorney-General ob-
tained a rule nisi in this Court for a criminal information
against George White and Feargus O'Connor, for the
publication of a letter in the Northern Star, reflect,
ing on the character of the Reverend R. Anstie,
one of the masters of Rugby school, and imputing
to him conduct of the most grwsly immoral description,
in regard to a woman named Fearon, and also charging
him with having pursued a course of unrelenting perse-
cution towards John Fearon, the husband of Ann Fearon.
On that occasion the Rev. applicant had made an affi-
davit distinctly denying all the charges alleged against
him, and the Court had granted the rule. Since
then it had been discovered that the affidavits were
irregular, inasmuch as they had been sworn before the
attorney for the applicant. The affidavits had since been
re-sworn, and

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now renewed the application.
Mr. JUSTICE WILLIAMS took time to consider whether
he could, consistently with the rules of practice, allow an
application of this nature to be renewed.
IN THE MATTER OF BERNARD CAVANAGH, A PRISONER