Star.
London, England, 1824-01-19 00:00:00


c:.n never be separated from the arms. For the de-
fendant, it was contended that the stationary mooring-
anchors, called mushroom anchors, and those called
edge anchors, which have their shanks secured in them
in a manner somewhat similar, as was alleged, to those
of plaintiff, were ships anchors. The Attorney-General,
however, tailed, in his cross-examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses, to establish that fact. None of them would
admit that they wet* ships' anchors—they were only fot
fixed moorings, the same as a large stone, or even a
post, where a post could be fixed. But as he mode of
fixing the shank in them Was somewhat similar, and as
a somewhat similar mode of fixing shanks in hammers
and pick-axes had long been practised, it was suggested
by the Judge, that on that point the verdict might be
special.
The Counsel for defendant then intimated that they
meant to contest the validity of the Patent on a ship's
windlass included therein.
Several nautical Gentlemen were then examined for
plaintiff, and expressed their opinion that the windlass
presented several improvements, but they had neve,
seen it-in actual use on board a ship. Different engi-
neers and men of science (Mr. Brunel, Dr. Gregory, of
the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich ; Professor
Millington, of the Royal Institute, and Mr. 13ramab),
proved that it possessed several advantages over the
common windlass, inasmuch as, by being made to re-
volve on an axis, it enabled the crew to let out the anchor
much quicker than could be done by the common wind-
lass; while at the same time, being furnished with what
workmen call a break, the velocity could be perfectly
regulated to any required speed, and being also 'fur-
nished with mechanical means for !ricking the revolving
part, it then became a common windlass.
The Arrottner-GENenat. endeavoured, in his cross-
at.
examinion of plaintiff's witnesses, and in his address to
the Jury (for he called no witnesses for defendant), to
impress on the Mind of the Jury, that the windlass pre-
• sented no improvement ;,and contended that its not,
having been brought into use mrship-board was a proof
• that it was not a useful inventiolV and, not being useful,
a patent for it could not be maintained.
The Jury, however, by their verdict, seemed to be of
opinion that a patentee's not being able to compel the
Public to-buy and use his invention furnished no evi-
dence that it was not useful. They,found a verdict fur
the plaintiff as to the noveltrand utility of the chain-
cable and the infiingement by the defendant. They
also found that the anchor was new and useful, but sub-
jeCt to the opinion of the Court, whether, on account of
the analogy to the pick-axe, the hammer, and the
mushroom and adze anchors, in the mode of firing the
shank, it formed the fit subject of a patent ; and the
Jury also found that the windlass.s4i new and useful.
Nominal Damages, 40i.---Costs 40s. - -- •
[Dr. Gregory, we apprehend, said fee of his nautical experience
than he might fairly have done. When, in giving We testimony, he
spoke 'of the skirt voyages which he had made, he evidently adopted
the mariner's sense of the term. Independent ly of other voyages, he
is Well-known to have been appointed by this Government to go in
. a King's frigate (the Investigator) as far as north latitude 61 deg.
to make philosophical experiments on the length of the pendulum,
the figure of the earth, &c. Km]
RUTHERFORD V. THE TRUSTEES OF HALL'S WILL.

This was an action brought by Mrs. Rutherford, of,
Sunderland, against the trustees acting under the will
of her brother, the late Richard Hall, of the Commer-
cial-road, for the recovery of certain leasehold property,,
which was said to have been bequeathed away ft om the
family by the deceased. The action was brought in the
form of an ejectment against the parties in possession, .
who were necessarily called upon, in the first instance,
to sustain the validity of the will.
Mr. Guasity, on the part of the residuary legatees;
stated the case in suppOrt of the validity of the will, and
called several witnesses to prove that the late Richard
Hail, who died of dropsy in the year 182'2, had, on the
24th of September, that year, made a will bequeathing
his personal property, which WAS under 8,0001. to wire-
, ral friends therein named, and his leasehold property;
worth about 1,5001. to them also, and leaving (and that
Mr. Ourney represented to have been of their own sug-
gestion) to Mrs. Rutherford, who was Mr. Hall's sister,
one thousand. pounds. Many of. the witnesses said that
Mr. Hall repeatedly declared that he would not leave
her one farthing, calling her at the same- tin 4 an 14 im-
pudent hussy," and saying that she had collected and
spent the rent of some property which be had in the
North of England. It appeared that the will was made
on the day before be died, when he was so feeble as to
be obliged to be helped up and supported in the bed,
when be could hardly articulate " yes " or " no," and
that a person in the room held his hand, and put it on
the paper to make his mark.
Dr. Billing said that be attended and tapped him on
the previous day, or day but one, when he was in a
state of insensibility; that he was incoherent, and he
could not say whether he was or, was not competent to
make a Cll. A porter statedthat he had sat lip with him
on the two nights before his death, and that he appeared.
in his perfect senses, and able tQ call for brandy and
water; which the nurse appeared to have supplied hint
with, as well as taken a sup or two for herself ; for the
doctor said) that on one of these occasions he found both
nurse and patient labouring under the effects of this
liquor.—The case in support of die will was closed at
a quarter before six o'clock; when
Mr. Sc.+ am= said he was anxious, before, at that
hour of theevening (nearly 6 o'clock), be ackdressedthern
on the defence, to know if they had a doubt upon the case;
for if they thought with him, that the man was not in a
condition to make a will at le moment the paper was
scratched upon, there would be no use in wasting their
time for an hour or two further.
The Jury, after a short consultation, said they were
satisfied he was not at the moment competent to make a
will : their verdict was therefore for the plaintiff.
Several women who were in Court, and interested in
the cause, commenced shouting for joy and clapping
their hands, and the Lord Chief Justice threatened to
commit them if they 'did not desist.
OLD BAILEY, JAN. 17.
John WeSb was capitally indicted for the wilful
murder of Charles Gibson, and in another count for
killing and slaying the said Charles Gibson. The facts
of this case have already been before the Public. The
deceased, Charles Gibson, was killed in a pitched battle
at Bethnal-green, between him and a youth named
George, who, with his master (who seconded him), a
master baker, named Faucett, was tried last Session for
the offence, were both convicted, and sentenced to dif-
ferent periods 'of imprisonment. The facts proved
against the prisoner were these :—A fight
.having been
agreed upon in November last, between two youths
Dared George and Gibson, for a leg of mutton and
(trimmings, in consequence of a dispute about a sack,
which Gibson would not give up to George, though it
-Was his property, which sack had been used at some
wake or festival at Bow, at a race and jumping in sacks;