The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-09 00:00:00

SEW EL V. NIX ♦ND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff is an attorney and clerk to the Board of Guardians
of Weichesden, in Cambridgeshire, and the defendants are the
overseers. This action was brought to recover the amount of a bill
of costs for legal business done by direction of the Guardians. The
defence was, first, that the defendants were not liable for the order
of the Guardians; secondly, that they had not consented to the
proceedings for which the claim was made; and, thirdly, that in
any case the plaintiff was not entitled, inasmuch as the business
was unskilfully done, and without any advantage. The principa)
items in the bill were charges fur travelling and other expenses in
endeavouring to compel a person at Gainsborough, one hundred
miles off, to support his mother, who was in the workhouse at
Welchesden.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested that the case had better be
referred, so that both parties might be examined before the a•bi-
trators, by which means the truth would be better got at, than by
a trial in open Court.

Mr. JARVIS for the plaintiff having expressed his readiness to
take that course,
Mr. HUNPIIREY consented to a verdict, subject to a reference

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 8.

PERRY V. MITCHELL.

This was an action brought by Mr. Perry, the celebrated steel..
pen manufacturer, against the defendant, for imitations of certain
pens for which the plaintiff had taken out patents.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Statners, and Mr. Montague Smith,
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Messrs. Kelly, Jervis, and Beckett,
for the defendant.
It appeared from the opening speech of the Attorney-General,
that Mr. Perry look out a patent, in 1832, for seven kinds of pens,
all formed for the purpose of rendering steel pens more flexible than
any that had before been manufactured. In the year 1833 he took

lout another patent, for what he called the " Fountain Pen,"
which was formed with a view to retain in the nib a greater
guritity 'of ink. Of the same species of pens for which he ob-
tained a patent in 18:32, the most esteemed was that numbered 2;
that pen and the "Fountain pen" had been imitated by the de-
fendant, a steel-pen manutacturer, at Manchester, and the present
action was brought in consequence.

James Cocking stated that be was a mechanical draughtsman at
Birmingham. In the month of July, 1840, he went to Mr.
Mitchell's in that town, and ordered a general assortment of steel
pens. He received some of them, but not all the sorts he had be.
spoke. He went again, and ordered a further assortment. The
order was complied with ; and among those he received were cer-
tain pens, which he would produce.. (The witness here handed' in
samples of pens, which were of the description the plaintiff com-
plained of as an infringement of his patent.)
Cross.examined by Mr. KELLY—Witness had been a mechanical
draughtsman for the last three or four years. He had known Mr.
Perry's patent since that time ; but not previously. The variety of
forms of steel. pens is very great.
Abednigo Follett stated that he had been for the last twelve years
clerk to the plaintiff. There is a great demand all over the
world for the patent pens of Mr. Perry. The plaintiff had first
taken out a patent in the year 1831 ; and he afterwards
took out patents in 1832 and 1833; the latter patents being im-
provements en the former. The patent of 1831 consisted merely
in a hole at the end of the slit, and by the subsequent improve.
ments slits were cut under the shoulder of the pens. The plaintiff
employed five or six travellers in his business. The patent of
1833 was taken out for the "Fountain Pen," which was formed
for the purpose of containing a reserve of ink.
Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS—There had been a large de.
mand for the " fountain pen ;" but it has somewhat fallen away for
the last two or three years. It consists in attaching a plate over
the hollow of the pen, for keeping the ink suspended. There are
three modifications of the " fountain pen."
Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—A greater number
of the pens No. 2 had been sold than of any other pens ever manu-
factured. They are sold at the rate of nine for 2s. ; and there are
sometimes .1001. worth, or 36,000 pens sold in a week.
Thomas Daft stated that he was a mechanic at Manchester. He
was the inventor of the " patent Perryan ink stand." Witness
considered Mr. Perry's patent pens a great improvement on the or.
dinary metallic pen. The pens of Mr. Mitchell's shown to wit.
ness were similar in form to those of Mr. Perry.
Mr. Minair, the well-known artist in pen and ink drawing, being
examined, stated that until the Perryian pen was produced under
the present patent, he never met with any steel pen which he
could use in his peculiar art. Before that he was obliged to use
crow quills, which could not be made by many degrees so good as
Perry's pen. Ile had tried all the other naetalic pens he knew of,
but it was not to use but to reject them.

Some beautiful specimens of Mr. Minair's work with the pen in
question were handed to the Court, and the Jury, examined
them through a magnifying glass, and seemed to express to each
other considerable admiration of the excellence of the work.

Mr. Carter, a civil engineer, and several other witnesses con.
netted with the business of metallic pen -making, were called to
move the superiority of Perry's pens above all others, and the imi•
tations of them in those made by the defendant.

Mr. Kett r, for the defendant, argued at great length, that the
patent was void, in consequence of vagueness and generality in the
specification, from which he contended no person could be able to
make the article wit,,,tit
.experiments ; and, further, that the int.