The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-16 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. CRAWFORD.

Upon this case being called on, one of the parties concerned
applied for it to stand over for a few days, in order that coun-
sel might be instructed.
The LORD CHANCICLLOR, in granting the application, ob-
served that he would hear it any day during the recess that the
parties chose to attend him in the country, provided they gave
him three or four days' notice, but that he should not coma to
town for that purpose.

IN THE MATTER OF ORIFFITHS AND SAMUDA'S PATENTS.

THE ATMOSPHERIC RAILWAY.

This case carte before his Ilo7i:hipUponthe petition of Mr.
Griffiths, praying that his Lordship would order a patent that
he had applied for on the tith of December 12.4, for the im-
provement in the apparatus and working of atmospheric rail-
ways, to he sealed. From the statements of the Learned
Counsel who supported the application, it appeared that both
Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Samuda had applied for patents for the
same invention, the former in December, 1844. and the latter
in January in the present year. It *ape !red also that in
October, 1844, Mr. Samuda took out a patent for a simi:ar
object in Scotia-,d ; and oar of the tpestions in the case was,
whether the feet of a patent being taken out an Scotland pre-
vented one being taken nut in Englaed for the same purpose.
On the case b in submitted to the Solicitor General, he re-
ported •har Alr Griffi. his' and Mr. Sarnuda's paients were for
the saute Invention; that Mr. Samuda was the original in-
ventor in Scotland. and that neither party were entitled to a
patent in England
Mr. RWA LISTON eite whom was tiir Pe,erstlorff hPhOf
of Mr. Grim; hs, en/tem-led that he sat the first inventor ; that
Mr. Samuda had in a moat iitiaee-untahle manner made him-
self aequainted with Mr. Griffi- vetitioa ; that the Scotch
patent did not prevent Mr. Griffitils from having an English
pa ent, and therefore that he was entitled to hive it healed.
Mr. J. PA RKER, an the part. of Mr. Samu la, denied most
positively that he had become pos-e.sed of the itiventioe in an
improper manner: or that the specification he had put in w's
fountled upon any knowleclg • that he had eteaineil o! Mr.
Griffii ha' invention. Thp Learned Counsel eubraitted that the
Court coo d only adopt the u ual course in cases like the pre-
sent, where two pan-nts were applied for for the saute inven-
tion, namely. to refuse the seal to either of them.
Mr. Sava esToie staving replied,
The LoanrHANCELLOR said there was not enough in the
case to le,' ::an to the conclusion that. the invention was stolen
by Mr. Samuda from M . Griffiths. He had a strong opinion
upon the point, that publication in Seottind was publication in
this country, and teat after that publication a party could not
have a patent here. The points insisted upon on the part of
the applicants had to his Lordship's mind been answered. the
application must therefore he refused, but without costs.
The parties therefore in the same situation they were be-
fore the application was made.
Flia Lordship not sit again, except at biA own residence,
till ♦Nowell:ller.

Vie F-CH tver.Ll,l T, Aug. 15

Fiis linnour the Vice-Chant

Enzhnfl :,tt in his pri-

71te t... Lyn, in Lineolq. Inn, to-day, for the purpose of hearing
anv tn.t .onz. t

COPYRIGHT OF DECIG NS CT -THOMPSON }MOTHERS AND

SONS V STAACH to AtiD OTHERS

tfr. ROMILLY (wi II hom wa3 J 0. Chamher..),
Applied ez parte, on behalf of the plaintiff-. who are extensive
cadco printers carrying oil business at Clitheioe, tor a .pecial
injunction to restrain the defendants, Me-ars. Hol and Hood,
who are calico printers at Alanch-Aer, from printing and pub-
-I;sliii.g the ca!tern of certain prints on calico, f,r the inven-
tion, publishing. and sating of which the plaintiffs. ander the
Copyright of Design, Act. hail a prweetion of nine months.
and also to restrain Strachan and It Ain, two of the other de-
fendaots, who camy on the business of warehouseman .n Friday-
street, in the City, from selling any o' the prints, which were
copies or lin, ations of those inv,--ited by the plaintiffs. From
h. statements of the Learned Counsel it Appealed *Litt in the
month of Atirl last the plaintiffs inve.nted a pa•tern for ladies'
il-esses. which they den m.rated a coral ornamented check.
which had been very much admired, and for which there was
go great a dem ind that ti,e defendant. thought 6t to pirate it ;
immediately upon discovering this the plaintiffs took proceed-
ings againsi the defendants, and ultimately the present bill
• was filed fo- the purpo e of obtaining an injunction to restrain
sue', piracy.
His HONOUR, without the least hesitation, granted the in-
junction.

No other applications of any interest were made before his
Honour during the remainder of the day.

SECO ,V 1) A kti 1: S i Aug. 15.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
ELLIOTT V. TAYLOR.
The plaintiff in this action is a surgeon and apothecary in
Finsbery Pavement; the d, fondant is an eating-house-keeper
in the Slineries. Ttie claim was for s9l. for medicines sup-
plied to defendant.
Mr. TAILOR, the plaintiff's solicitor, deposed to a conversa-
tion with the defendant, when the latter admitted the debt, and
that he was further indebted in four bills of exchange.
Mr. HORRY, for the defendant, clici-ed that the venue had
originally been Ant at Bristol the object was to expedite the.
trial. Bath parties residing in London, the venue might have
been laid in Sur•ey and tried at (7roiden Defendant did not
plead to the action, and he (11r. Ttsl.ir) then took out a sum-
mons to change the venue to London.
Mr. Horner, assistant to the paintiff, was galled, and proved
the making up of the medicines generally. Draughts were
charged at Is. 6d. each ; he could not readily say what the in-
gredients were, as they stood " repeated"—" repeated"—and
he could not find the first.
The SECONDARY said, in all probability the ingredients and
advice were mixed up together.—( Laughter.)
The witness said he only knew what was charged to patients
for medicina, and not its intrinsic value. de was not in trade
on his own account yet.—( Laughter.)
HOARY then subtn►tted, as a point of law, that the
plaintiff suing as a surgeon and apothecary could not recover ;
that as a surgeon he could not charge for meaicines, except it
was iiiiiidental to an operation ; and that his character as apo-
thecary was merged in the higher one of surgeon. No surgical
operation had been proved.
The SECONDARY said be would take a note of the objeetion,
but enuld not ag• ee
Mr. TAYLOR objected.
The Saco, DART said, there was a great difference between
taking a note. and reserving the writ ; he should not stay the
writ should the verdict be averse to defendant, as a summons
might be taken out.
Mr. HOARY then urg"d that the defendant's not pleading
ought not to be taken as an admission of the debt. but he had
boot obliged to abandon his ,aae through the venue being laid
at Bristol ; although, when he del not plead. plaintiff cauld
alter it o London. Hart defendant ptea,ed and lost his case
at Bristol, he might have been sutijeeted to animadversion, and
perhaps puni'•hment. for putting plaint iff to unnecessary expense.
' The Learned SECOISPAUT thought that that fact had
nothing to do with the fact of mliether medicine had been sup-
plied or its value.—Verdict for the full amount.

PALACP ()WV; , Avg. 15.

?masa V, H t SNELL.—REFUSAL To PAY 1 DEBT IPSDER 201.

In this ease it appeared that the plaintiff, who ni a vial deakr
at Paddington. hid suppli,-d the defendant friim tune to tine
with coals to the amount of i6l. 16.. PoLintiff had repeatedly
applied for the cash, hut an: often put off with nothing but.
promises. At length. however, detenitant, xd ir,iiniing plaintff,
said," As the dobt was under 20/., he ~.ould n<tt think of pay-
iitg it at aq,"
The defendant 19‘S untlefenled by ronmiel.
{he CHAIRMAN (Mr. Brent) having addressed a few word')
to the jury, the lat er returned a verifier fur the plaintiff; the
whole amount to be paid in-tanter, with costs.

ASSIZE INTELLIGh.:NCE.
tVESTER.,.-% CI i7GUi 1,-- i Bes, August 13.
(13 fore Mr. Justice Ext.e. )
STASHING —John Looker was indicted for maliciously cut-
tin_ and w-einding Thomas Everga:„ at Cricklade, in this
county, with intent to de him some grievous bodily harm.
There was also a count charging him with committing the act
to prevent hi+ lawful .apprehension.
From the evi.:ence it appeare.l that on the night of the 15th
of May, Evergay, svieo was a sup.-rintendent of police, was
going his rounds, and saw th- prisoner lying on the ground in
one of the streets, asleep ; this was at about one o'clock in the
morning, and another poLeeman, of the name of Gerrard,
coming, up, the prisoner was made to get up, and he walked
away. Shortly atter this, Gerrard artem ted to take another
man into en-tody, on suspicion of having committed a felony,
and a seliffle took place between them, during which Evergay
(who was going his rounds in the neighbourhood) came up and
went to hi. assistance. Just at this time the prisoner Looker also
came up, and Evergay ob,erving something in hiF ( Looker's)
ask,o him if it was a stone. He made no answer, but
immediate'', rushed upon Evergay and stabb,d him in the
hand with a knife, cutting him very severely. Other policemen
cnmirg up, the prisoner was taken into custody. On being
asked what he had done with the knife, he said he had dropped
it, and on search being made. an open ells,' knife, with blood
on it, was found near the spot where the scuffl • took pi:me.

The case for the prosecuti'.n having shred.. counsel addressed
the jury for the defence, comm!nting on the estrivaga,t na-
ture of the charge, and tLe apparent want of motive in the
primmer to commit the crime chargtd.
Mr. Justice Euut having summed up, the jury found the
v•ristrier guilty of 4 common assault only, and he was sen-
terit-e4 to two year-' impri,onment with hard labour.
WOUNDING WITH A SCYTHE.— Thomas HOlvood was in-
dicted for maliciously cutting and wounding John Vines, on
the 19th of July, at Aston Keynes, with intent to kill oe mur-
der him. There was a second count, charging him with intent
to do him some grievous bodily harm.
From the evidence it appeared tha' a cow belonging to the
prisni.er had strayed on some land of Vin,ds, upon vtl,ich Vine*
drove it into his yard. and impounded it there. Shortly after
this the prisoners wife, having toulid that the cow was im-
pounded at Vines's came there and asked to have the cow
given up to her, which was refused by Vines. unless she paid
a shilling for the damage the cow was alleged to have done.
The ',mantes wife refused to do tint, and went aisay, and as
she war going home, met her husband returning from mowing,
with hi, scythe oe his shoulder. She immediately informed
him what had occurreo ; upon w .ich he went to Vines, arid
inq•ted upon having his cow delivered up to him. Vines,
however, will twined to give up the cow, unless one shilling
ivas paid him. A slight scuffle ensued between him and the
prisaner.7heniatnhepretn of
i)nethrei.t .r,utenkei,,at Vines twice with his
scythe (in the language
" as if he was chopping
cif a dock-leaf"), and inflicted two very severe wounds on
his arm.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to
he transported for ten years.
There being only three causes entered for trial, two only of
"Inch were tried, the civil husine,s fitii,hed early yesterday,
;,nu( Mr. Baron Pisa. pro tam., was engaged all day in try.
in prisoners in the tint Pries Court. This evening Mr. Jus-
tice Erie and Mr. Baron Platt dine with the Marquis of
LaronwsdrinwE7q..ajta
thsecatleaatdeßr•stwoortet/he excuii are invited to meet. The High Sheriff ( Wade
,
them.
.1 he GrandJuryfpintda having' (much a.:ainst the general ea.
pectation) true bill aea.int a man name Woolmore,
for the murder of his wile, the case is to he taken to-morrow
morning.