The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. IS.
DE BERENGER V. 11AMMEL.

In this cause the plaintiff (the Baron de Beren-
ger) had filed a bill praying for an account, and that
the Court would dissolve the partnership that sub-
sisted between him and the defendant. The subject
of the partnership was- a patent water-proof gun.
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL (with Whom was Mr.
HILL) was heard in support of the prayer of the
bill.

The evidence, which was very voluminous, was
then read. it consisted principally of letters that
had passed between the parties, and they were
written in a very ungry tone.

Mr. HORNS opposed the prayer of the bill. The
facts of the case were these. The Baron de Be-
renger, who was a dealer in inventions, invited the
defendant to purchase one of these articles. After
many communications, the defendant entered into
partnership with the Baron in the profits which
were to result from a certain novel invention for
making gun-locks water-proof. At the foot of the
agreement was a memorandum, which recited 17
other inventions of the Baron's, all of which the
defendant was to have the liberty of purchasing in
preference to any other person. A patent for the
water-proof gun was taken out by the Baron, at the
expense of the defendant, who .advanced 360
guineas. The patent was taken out in June, 1824,
and now the disputes between the parties began.
The defendant naturally wished that models of the
said gun should be made, for without this the in-
vention could be of no use. The Baron had fur-

nished nothing but pictures of the gun hitherto. At
length, in October, 1824,, a model was begun, but
the Baron stopped the workman, and refused to
complete it unless the defendant advanced more
money. This the defendant would not do unless
made acquainted with the wo►kmen who were to be
employed; and, beginning to suspect that the in-
vention was all moonshine, he moreover required

that the model should be exhibited to the public,
and not to remain in the Baron's house at Kentish-
town. This was the state of the case. The Baron
had got all the money he could out of the defendant,
and he now came into a Court of Equity to get
rid of the contract.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the simple
question for him to decide was, whether the Court
ought to dissolve this partnership. He understood
the doctrine, as laid down by Lord Eldon in the
case of " Waters and Taylor," to be this—that if

it should be found that there existed an irrecon-
cileable animosity between two partners, the Court
would dissolve the connection between them, be-
cause it could not be to the advantage of either of
them that it should continue. his order was there-
fore that it should be dissolved, that an account be
taken, and that the patent, the subject of the part-
nership, be sold. He must res..rve father direc-
tions and costs, because it might turn out that there
was no partnership property in this concern, and
then each party would have to pay his own costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 13.
TILE KING V. WATTS AND ANOTHER.
Mr. KELLY stated that this case was tried before
Mr. Baron GARROW and a special Jury at the last
Assizes at Norwich, when a verdict of guilty was
entered, with leave by the Learned Judge to the
defendants to move to set it aside. This was an
ea...officio information by his Majesty's Attorney-
General against the defendants, Ireland Watts and
Robert Watts, for obstructing and resisting certain
officers of the Customs in the execution of their
duty. The facts proved at the trial were these :
On the 28th of December last there was some rea-
son to suspect that a landing of a quantity of pro-
hibited goods had taken place on the coast of Nor-
folk, in consequence of which Lieutenant Delafosse
and five or six other persons employed in the Pre-
ventive Service, proceeded, on the Ist of January,
accompanied by a constable, to the house of the de-
fendant Ireland Watts, at a distance of four or five
miles from the place where the supposed landing
had taken place. On arriving there, they produced
a warrant, called a writ of assistance, and stated
that they had come to search the house. The de-
fendant, Robert Watts, who was below, referred
them to his brother, Ireland 'Watts, who was in
the house. They then entered the house and pro-
ceeded to the first or second staircase. They were
there met by the defendant, Ireland Watts, who
asked them what reason they had for entering his
boon. Lieutenant Delafosse replied, that they had
come to search the premises. Ireland Watts then
Said, " Produce your warrant." Lieut. Delafosse,
producing u writ of assistance, said, " Here is my
warrant," and read some part of it to the defendant,
who observed that the document gave them no
authority to search his house, but he told
them that if they would send to Lord Suffield,
the pFacest resident magistrate, or any other
magistrate in the neightriirbood and procure a
search-warrant, he would allow the premises to be
searched. He proposed that the party should remain
at the house while a messenger was despatched to
Itnra Suffield, but he positively refused to permit a
search' tq }re made under the writ of assistance,
Lieutenant Delafosse insisted op making the
search, and produced a pistol and cutlass. The
defendants made resistance, and one of the
officers was collared, and pushed down stairs.
ieutenant Delafosse and his party then proceeded
tthe lower part of the house, and a messenger was
sent to Lord Suffield. ills I,44lship arrived in a
shot time, and on peing inade.acquaitited with what
ltaci taben'plage, srii4 cOuld.nidt presume to pro-
nounce any opinion us to the iiiitilorirfluPlier which
the officers acted; but he recommended that the deb
fendant Ireland Watts should allow the officers to
search the house. The defendant, on this intimation
from his Lordship, expressed his willingness to per-
mit the to be made; but Lieutenant Dela-
fossethen refuse(); " No; I shall now
exchequer them;"' antl thenc• calihig .awuy his
cers, took his departure. 'On the -proof df thge
facts, the defendants were found guilty. There was
iio evidence fp.at any smuggled goods had been de-
posited at the' defendanCs prctpises, nor were any
facts' stated,'" showing': that the officers had arty
grounds for. The' libinCisihich he (Mr.
i.sAfi),N. t 'the 'trial tin' thejiirt of the defend-
ants,4n4'WhiTch 4e :to* )i'44to'subMit to 'their
LordultiA wits, tiPiei P9t. q 1"
der the writ of as36taneo to se4r6l) Pip Pipe, 40
that consequently the resistance on the part of the
defendants, being unaccompanied with any unneces-
cary violence, was fully justified, and the defendants
"Pb4l4 convicted under the present informa-
tion. • ,
After arguing this point at great length, anti wish