The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-08-28 00:00:00

FRIDAY.

TURNER AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. LIVERPOOL
Dock TRUSTEES.—This case was partillly gone into on
the previous day. The real defendants in the case are
Messrs. Manlove and Co., cotton-brokers, of Charleston.
In the year 1846, Messrs. Barton, Irlam, and Higginson
sent the Charlotte to America, with a cargo of coal and
salt, which was consigned to Messrs. Manlove and Co. to
sell, with orders to them to purchase for freight, for the
return voyage of the vessel, 2000 bales of cotton. The
vessel was so freighted with Upland cotton and some tim-
ber, with which she sailed for this port; bet whilst she
was on her voyage, the house of Barton, Irlam and Hig-
ginson became bankrupt, and on the vessel arriving here,
an agent of Messrs. Manlove and Co. went and endea-
voured to obtain possession of the cargo, to prevent it
falling into the hands of the creditors of the estate of
Messrs. Barton, Irlam, and Co. The assignees under the
bankruptcy also laying claim to it, the dock trustees took
possession of it, and refused to give it up—hence the pre-
sent suit, the object being to recover on the ground that
the goods having virtually been consigned to Barton,
Irlam, and Higginson, were therefore the property of the
estate. After the case had been gone through for the
plaintiffs, the court adjourned until the following morning.
—On the opening of the court on Friday, Mr. Knowles
addressed the jury for the defendants. Witnesses having
been examined, his lordship directed the jury that the
property was to be in the defendants, and not in the plain-
tiffs ; that was to say, that the right of stoppage in transitu
was in the defendants: that the property did not so vest
in the bankrupts as to divest the stoppage in transitu by
Manlove. A verdict was taken for the defendants, subject
to a bill of exceptions.
HATTERSLEY V. THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—(S J.)—ln this case, Sir Frederick Thesiger,
(specially retained), Mr. Noggins, and Mr. Segar appeared
for the plaintiffs; Mr. Martin and several other gentlemen
for the defendants. This was an issue directed by the
Vice-Chancellor, upon a declaration made before him, in
which the plaintiff averred that, on the 31st of March
last, the defendants, to the injury of the plaintiff, pre-
vented him carrying out and fulfilling a certain contract
for the performance of work to be executed by him for
the defendants, and that the defendants cOmpleted such
work by their own servants to his pecuniary detriment.
The object of the issue was to ascertain from a jury whe-
ther the plaintiff had just and sustainable grounds of
claim, with the view of the accounts being examined by
the Master in Chancery. Sir Frederick Thesiger having
stated the case at very considerable length, after a con-
ference amongst counsel, the matter was agreed to be
submitted to reference.
ISHERWOOD V. RIDGWAY AND ANOTHER.—In this
case, in which the question of the professional responsi-
bility of a solicitor was to have been raised, the plaintiff
being satisfied by her counsel that she had no sustainable
case against the defendants, unconditionally withdrew the
record.
ATHERTON V. BATES.—This was an action for the reco-
very of an amount of money received upon goods con-
signed to Bombay. After the case had been gone into at
considerable length, it was arranged to take a nonsuit,
with liberty to enter a verdict for the plaintiff for £774
ss. 3d., after giving credit for £l,lOO.

was
oTwa
utebUtri:Roi
lu)
uoyDrgonAY
htmi
hetyemf .0;
manufacturer
n
plaintiff
rbmeureSirsnln,gi
iLa;soLmfaaEnaßDdspi
cotton,
;tat thit.ceeiDnnastsicopctitixii
taken
kintaxieeSnsprAo:.—The plaintiff, Mr. John Sel-
aun thef
allegedcd t eufrefeonrrd
aaiatnn
certainfßt
r,
il
nacgke Mr.
..
improvement in the weaving power-loom. The enrolment
of the specification was made in 1845. The defendant
denied the validity of the patent, and also pleaded that he
had not infringed it; on these two questions issue was
joined.
Mr. MARTIN, in opening the case, illustrated his re-
marks by the exhibition of three neat medals, one of which
showed the mechanism of the first power-loom invented.
In this machine, whilst the shuttle was passing along the
warp it was liable to stop between the two shuttle-boxes.
The machine could be thrown out of gear, but the motion
continued, and the web and machine itself were injured
by the force of the shock. In 1842 a gentleman named
Bullough took out a patent to remedy this evil. He
stopped the machine by applying the principle of the break
to the flywheel. The break was to operate by a weight
or spring. The plaintiff invented an improvement on this,
by bringing the " slay" and the whole power of the engine
upon the break, so that with whatever velocity the fly-
wheel was moving the momentum of the machine could
be instantly arrested. One benefit was, that the machine
could be safely worked at a speed fully twenty-five per
cent. greater than before. The machines made by the
defendant, who was alleged to have infringed the patent,
contained identically the same principle, only that the
lever called into play was in one instance vertical and in
the other horizontal. It was contended on behalf of the
defendant, that the plaintiff had only claimed in the spe-
cification for a certain " novelty of arrangement," and
had no right to the principle of construction involved.
The plaintiff's invention contained, in addition to the
break, " clutch-box," a feature totally wanting in the
machines made by the defendant. The trial of course

possessed but little interest except for the parties imme-
diately concerned. It occupied the whole of the day. By
half-past five o'clock Mr. Watson had concluded his speech
for the defence, and intimated that he had a host of wit-
nesses to call. The court, on this, adjourned.

YESTERDAY.
Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.
WAINWRIGHT V. DYSON AND ANOTHER.
In this case, being the action relative to a surgeon's
bill, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for £1220, less
the money paid into court, subject to a reference. The
counsel on each side gave up their briefs, and thus the
reference became inevitable. The attorneys engaged in
the cause were, for the plaintiff, Mr. Thos. Woodburn,
and for the defendants, Messrs. Whitworth, both of
Man chester.

SELLERS v. DICKINSON.—This case was resumed yes-
terday, and occupied the court the whole of the day,
After hearing a great number of witnesses for the defence,
the jury retired, and remained in deliberation about an
hour, when they returned to the box, and their foreman,
Mr. Cleaver Chapman, handed in the verdict to his lord-
ship, who decided in favour of the plaintiff; damages 40s.
In this verdict the question, " whether the combination
of the two principles constitutes the infringement" was
not entertained, the case was, therefore, ruled, subject to
a reference. With this case the business of the assizes
ended, about five o'clock last night.