The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-26 00:00:00

V. SAUNDERS.

This was an application by Mr. Toniatio, 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 tie Lisle, a native of
France, and by hifn 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-
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 plaintiff's. By this
plan a perfectly horir_mtal platform was produced
without an arch, and this. was claimed by the plaintiff's
as a novelty, when the same thing could .be done by
three other patents, viz., those of Geary, of Steed, and
6f 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 plaintiffs, 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 HoNoun 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
of a definite shape, as the angle must alWays
the same. The defendant's block, exhibited beside
that of the plaintiff, appeared to correspond ex-
actly—to be in fact the same t thing. Then the
question was, 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.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 25.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HUNT V. KELPS.—JUDGMENT.
Lord DENMAN, seeing Mr. Sergeant Shea in
Court, said he would give judgment in this case, in
which the Learned Sergeant had some short time
since moved for a rule nisi for a new trial. This was
an action to recover the amount of a policy of insu-
ranee against fire. The defendant had pleaded, first,
that the fire had happened through the procurement
of the plaintiff, and also that he had given a false and
fraudulent statement of his loss. The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff on the first plea, and for the
defendant as to the false and fraudulent statement of
loss. The burden of proof being on the defendant,
he began, and a great deal of evidence had been given,
and among other witnesses examined was a person
named Abbott, whose evidence went to show that the
plaintiff had given in a false and fraudulent statement
of his loss. His evidence, if believed, proved a clear
case of false statement. The rule for a new trial had
been moved on the ground of misdirection, because
Lord Abinger, who tried the cause, had told the Jury
that if they believed Abbott, indeed if they did not con-
sider he was perjured, they must return a verdict for the
defendant on the plea of false and fraudulent statement.
The Learned Counsel, who had moved for the rule,
contended that the Learned Judge ought to have left
it to the Jury to say, not merely whether they be-
lieved the statement of Abbott—not merely whether
they. considered him perjured, and his statement wil-
fully false, but whether he might not have made a
mistake which was capable of explanation. The
Learned Counsel who had led at the trial, had not
made the motion, but the Court was willing to take
the facts from Mr. Sergeant Shea, who had derived it
from the Learned Counsel.
Lord DENMAN, in answer to some explanations
made by Mr. Sergeant Shea, remarked that they
made no difference in the Court's mode of pro-
ceeding. We have since (continued the Learned
Judge) referred to Lord Abinger, who has
reported to us the mode in which the matter of an
alleged mis-statement took place. We find that the
question of false statement was clearly treated, not
only by the Learned Judge, but by the Counsel for
the plaintiff, as depending upon the credit that
was due to Abbott, and if his evidence was be-
lieved, the Jury could hardly fail to find
that issue for the defendant. The Learned 'Judge
began by telling the Jury that he would advise
them to find no verdict on the first issue, and on the
second issue he expressed his opinion in strong terms;
no doubt some of the expressions made use of might
have been too strong, but taking it altogethesi,-the
meaning of what fell from the Learned ludge un-
doubtedly is, that he would -advisai.the Jury not to
find a verdict on the plea of felony, but unless they
thought there were grounds for thinking Abbott
guilty of perjury, their verdict must be for the de-
fendant on the second issue, and in that the Learned
Counsel for the plaintiff acquiesced, and it strikes me
that this manner of putting the case was the most
wise and prudent course that could be adopted. Under

Mr. BYLES submitted that, on the defendant's own
showing, he wus not entitled to be discharged from
custody. Defendant admitted that he was about to
quit England, but said he was going to Ireland.
Now, as the words of the Act were, that a proof being
given to the Judge that a party was about to quit
England, the Judge should have the power of issuing
a warrant for his arrest. The arrest in this instance
was good, for defendant admitted that he had been
about to.quit England.
Mr. KELLY and Mr. WHATELEY having been heard
in reply.
The JUDGES gave their opinion seriatim, that the
arrest was good.
In the course of the argument Mr. Justice WM..
LIANIS stated that in the passing of the Act abolishing
arrest for mesne process, the Judges conferred to-
gether as to the construction to be given to the words
" about to leave England," and that they had come to
iban opinion that if it were shown a party was about to
proceed from England to Ireland, or Scotland, the
Judge had power to issue a warrant for his arrest, and
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE stated that he had fre-
quently issued warrants for the arrest of persons
about to proceed to Ireland or Scotland.—Application
refused.

MANDAMUS.-WALKER V. THE BLACKWALL RAILWAY
COMPANY._ . _

In this case an application had been made to the
Court for a rule for a mandamus, calling on the She-
riff of Middlesex to impanel a Jury to assess the
amount of compensation due to the plaintiff for the
damage a public-house, of which he was the proprie-
tor, had sustained from the proximity of the railway.
The ease was argued during the present term, and to-
day the Court gave judgment that the rule for, a man-
damus must be' made absolute.