The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-25 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS, DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of EN'GIAND.)
The Court was occupied to-day in taking Motions. '
The following application excited considerable
interest :
WOOD PAYING..—COUNT DE LISLE A-ND OTHERS
V. SAUNDERS.
This was an application by Mr. TORIANO, on the
part of the plaintiffs, Count de Lisle and others, for
an injunction against the defendant, Saunders,
chemist, of Windmill-lane, Camberwell, to restrain
him from using and applying to the pUrpose of paving
public thoroughfares with wood, a certain kind of
block, which it was contended was a piracy
and infringement of a patent granted to the defendants.
The original inventor of the block for which the pa -
tent was granted was Count de Lisle, a native of
France, and by him conveyed to a person named
Hodgson, one of the present plaintiffs. The plan of
the Count de Lisle is that used by the Metropolitan
Wood-paving Company, under a license from the
original inventor and patentees. This plan is the
bisection of a cube of wood, laid down in a certain
combination of the angles, and this mode of dividing
and laying down the blocks had, been closely copied
by the defendant. Specimens of each plan were ex-
hibited in Court, accompanied by numerous plans and
drawings of sections.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, on the part of defendant, con-
-1 tended that no infringement whatever of the patent
had taken place.; his client had only done what every
one had a right to do ; he had gone to a timber mer-
chant and bought blocks of a certain shape, and put
them together according to his own patent, bearing
date subsequently to that of the plaintiffs. By this
plan a perfectly horizontal platform was produced
without an arch, and this was claimed by the plaintiffs
as a novelty, when the same thing could be done by
three other patents, viz., those of Geary, of Steed, and
of Carew, all dated prior to that'of plaintiffs. Another
important part of• the plan was the combination
of the sections ; but laying down the blocks in
that manner could not be called an infringe-
ment. If any parties were entitled to complain it
was not the plaintiff's, but the Metropolitan;Wood-
paving Company. It appeared from the affidavit of
Mr. Virtue, that the blocks were imported from Nor-
Way, and part of them purchased by the Metropolitan
Company, but it was found that they were not properly
made, and they were altered for the purposes of the
Company. Other blocks of the same sort were sold to
the defendant, and by him laid down according to his
combination, so that from this it appeared that the
blocks themselves were not identical. The form of
. these blocks could not be, a patent, since the form itself
must be as old as the creation ; nor could the mode
of laying them down be called an infringement. These.
grounds were quite sufficient to warrant the Court in
refusing the injunction.. -
His HONOUR said a case had been shown quite suf-
ficient to -justify an injunction. The essential matter
in Hodgson 's patent was the particular mode of
cutting the cube so as to produce a figure necessarily
cf a definite shape, as the angle must always be
the same. The defendant's block, exhibited beside
that of the plaintiff, appeared to correspond ex-
actly—to be in fact- the same thing.. Then the
question ww. whether that which was called an
improvement, was not, in fact, a colourable mode
of invading the plaintiffs' patent. To some extent a
question of right to the patent was involved. He
should grant the injunction, with liberty to the defen-
dant to bring such an action as he might be advised.
Several other motions of no particular interest were
disposed of. This is the last day of Term, and the
Court does not sit again till the 3d of December.
BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)

WEEKS V. PUSINEY.
Mr. JAMES moved for a rule to shew cause why
the proceedings, judgment, and writ of execution,
should not be set aside, and the money returned to the
defendant ; and why the costs of the motion should
not be paid by Mr. Hamer. The facts of the case as
disclosed by the affidavits were these :—Mr. Pusiney
is an attorney, residing at Stockbridge, and was en-
gaged as the election agent of Lord Hunting-
tower, who offered himself as a candidate for the
borough of Andover. In consequence of Lord Hnnt-
ingtower not being of age, Lord William Paget be-
came a candidate, and he and Mr. Hamer, an attor-
ney, came to Andover in June, 1841. When at
Andover they found there was no money to mat
the election expenses, and a private meeting was
held to devise means for procuring the necessary
funds. At this meeting Hamer proposed that a
bill of exchange for 4501. should he drawn by
Mr. Pusiney, accepted by Lord Huntingtowcr,
endorsed by Lord William Paget, and that he would
take it to London and get it cashed, and return next
day to Andover. The parties agreed in this arrange-
ment, and Mr. Hamer left for London, but did not
return as he promised, to Andover. Mr. Pusiney heard
nothing, of the bill till May, 1842, when an application
for payment was made to him by Mr. H. Valiance
In consequence of this Mr. Pusiney called upon the
plaintiff to explain to him the hardship of the transac-
tion, when he discovered that he was not a bona fide
holder of the hill, and was not the real plaintiff at all.
When the bill became due it was dishonoured, and
notice of dishonour was given, which was stated to
be written by .Hamer himself, at his own office, he
having forged the name of Cassidy and Co., bill
brokers, residing in Bucklesbury, from whom it was
stated to have come. The affidavits of Lord Hunting-
tower and Lord W. Paget corroborated these facts.
Affidavits were also read from two persons named
Reading and Winter, stating that Weeks, the plain-
tiff, 'was formerly a waiter, living . at No. 11,
St. James's-square, and afterwards in Pall-mall ;
and that he now kept a low gambling-house,
and was not a person in circumstances likely to be-
come a bona fide holder of. the bill in question, and
that Hamer was in the habit of using his name as
a sham plaintiff.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. CONSTABLE.
Mr. Bonmy moved for a certiorari to remove the
indictment in this case from the Central Criminal
Court into the Court of Queen's Bench. The indict-
ment was against a highly respectable lady for a for-
cible entry, connected with the service of an attach-
ment issued out of the Court of Chancery, and several
important points would arise, upon which it was
desirable to obtain the decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench.—Application granted. .
TIIE QUEEN V. MARTIN.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a rule calling
on the defendant to show cause why he exercised the
office of Councillor for the borough of Leeds. It ap-
peared that at the last election for the borough there
were five candidates for the West Ward, and the state
of the poll at its close was Craven, 585 ;
Brandley, 547 ; Martin, 543 ; the other two
candidates being still lower on the poll. The asses-
sors, however, struck off, without any examination,
five votes from the poll of Mr. Brandley, on the
ground that those five voted at the previous election in
1841, for another ward, there being no new revision
of the burgess roll in the meantime. Another ground
for the rule was that a voting paper with the name of a
person named Baxendel . was counted for Martin.
There was an affidavit from Baxendel, stating that
he was not in Leeds at all at the time of the election.
—Application granted.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon. Edition.)
IN TUE CASE OF LORD HUNTINGTOWER.
The case was not again mentioned in Court, but
we understood that the execution was withdrawn,
and his Lordship was discharged from the custody of
the Sheriff.