The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-04-08 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY.

INNKEEPERS' LIABILITIES: ARMISTEAD V. WYLDE.—
This was an action brought to recover the amount of a
sum of money stolen from the Neptune Inn, Clayton-
square, in this town, and belonging to a commercial
traveller. Mr. Joseph Armistead has for a long period
travelled for the house of J. and J. Armistead, seed.
crushers, &c., of Leeds. and the plaintiffs in this action.
During twenty years he has made the Neptune his home
on visiting Liverpool. On November 4th last he repaired,
on arriving at Liverpool, to his accustomed inn, where
the defendant, Emma Wylde, received him. On
the night of the 7th he deposited £285, in gold and
notes, in his driving-box, which he locked up, and left
upon the table in the commercial-room. On examining
his driving-box next morning, he found that it had been
forced open, and that all his money had been taken
away. He, therefore, claimed from the landlady recom-
pense for his loss ; and, the liability being disputed,
(though it was alleged by Mr. Armistead in evidence that
a promise to restore the value of the amount had been
made by the defendant,) his employers had recourse to the
present procedure to recover. Cyrus Watts, the man
charged with the robbery, is now awaiting his trial at the
sessions. The defence urged was, that there was nothing
in outward show to indicate that the defendant was the
keeper of the hotel ; that the license on the 6th and 7th
of November was in the name of the deceased mother of
the defendant ; that the name over the door was that of
the mother ; that the hills were not in the defendant's
name ; and that the probability was, (considering her sex
and age) that the defendant was not the owner of the
hotel at all, though. for family reasons, sbe might have
remained in the house. Mr. Knowles also dwelt strongly
on the fact of their being no corroboration of the s'ate-
ment of Mr. Armistead with respect to the restoration of
tke value of the property. The judge having summed up,
a verdict was returned for the defendant on the ground of
negligence.
CLAIM FOR COMMISSION BY A SHIPBROKER : COWIE
v. SCHARLAN.—This action was brought to recover com-
mission alleged to be due to the plaintiff, Mr. Henry
Cowie, a shipbroker, of this town, from the defendant,
Mr. Frederick Scharlan, the captain of the ship Cw.,ar.
On the Bth November last the plaintiff chartered his ship
for the Brazils; the charter being drawn up at the office
of Messrs. M'Bride and Nodin, shipbrokers, by the re-
quest of the defendant, who agreed also that it should be
offered for acceptance to Messrs. Miller and Thompson,
as charterers. This firm, after a day's consideration,
consented to take the Caesar if she carried coffee in bags
and sugar in cases, at 605., loading at Rio Janeiro, and
655. at any other Brazilian port. Other goods were to be
in proportion. The only alteration which the defendant
requested to be made in this arrangement was, that " 280
tons of coal" should be substituted for the stipulation
made by Messrs. Miller and Thompson that the ship
should take out as much cargo as she delivered home in
the gross. Though Messrs. Miller declined to alter the
terms of their proposed arrangement, the defendant
agreed with the plaintiff to accept them if the charter
could be completed by the succeeding Monday ; but be
did not call, as he promised, at the plaintiff's officer and
when seen by Mr. Cowie at a later period of the same
day, the defendant told the shipbroker that he had com-
pleted the charter without the aid of the latter, having
seen the merchants himself. Mr. Cowie. therefore, feeling
himself aggrieved, inasmuch as it was contended on his
behalf that the defendant had taken advantage of his hav-
ing mentioned the names of the firm with whom he was
in treaty for the effecting of the instrument, had brought
the present action. Evidence on the part of the defen-
dant was adduced to show that a negotiation prior to that
with the plaintiff had taken place with other shipbrokers,
Messrs. Bahr,' Behrend, and Co. ; that Mr. Cowie had
intervened; though terms had ultimately been completed
with the first brokers. Upon this evidence it was con-
tended that the plaintiff had no right to his commission,
and, after the judge had made some comments on the
case, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

EJECTMENT : DOE DEM. KELLYER AND OTHERS V.
KlNG.—Recovery of possession was sought by this action
of a house in Hill-street, in this town, which formerly
beloneed to Samuel Gaskin, a master mariner, who died
in 1821 ; and the title of the plaintiffs was, under his will,
made in 1815. Gaskin devised the whole of his personal
and other property to his wife; and on her death, in ac-
cordance with the terms of the will, the house in question,
with the rest of the estate, were shared equally by the
sisters, nephews, and nieces of Gaskin. One of these,
Mrs. Parkhouse, the sister of Gaskin, who, on the death
of her first husband, married a person named Kellyer,
had several children, of whom the plaintiffs were three.
The defendant, Bernard King, was a porter in the Dock
Trust, who had married a person named Gaskell, who pre-
ferred to be a daughter of Samuel Gaskin, but who, it
was urged by the counsel for the plaintiffs, if a child at all,
was not a natural one,• and certainly had no legitimate
claim to the property. General verdict for the plaintiffs.

NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERDAY.
NEWTON V VAUCHER.
This was an action for infringement of a patent, and
was tried by a special jury. Mr. Knowles, the attorney
general for the county palatine, Mr. Crompton, and Mr.
Adolphus, were the counsel for the plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case by stating
that the plaintiff complained that a patent, to which he
laid claim, had been infringed. The plaintiff did not say
that this patent was his own invention ; it had been com-
municated to him by a foreigner, and that action was
brought to protect the partiesinterested. The patent was
for certain improvements in the construction of boxes for
the axles, or axle-trees, of locomotive engines and car-
riages, and for the bearings contained within these boxes.
The second was relative to the oiling, or lubricating, of
the axles. The learned counsel, however, remarked that
he should confine himself to the former part, and for this
purpose be produced the model of an axle-box. Within
this axle-box a metal beading, or case, was placed, which
from the immense friction resulting from the rapid
action of locomotives was liable to become heated. A
Mr. Rabbitt, of Boston in America, invented a remedy to
this. He lined the hard metal bearing with tin, and
then by means of a mandrill, coated that with a soft
metal. This entirely obviated the inconvenience arising
from hard metal bearings, abraison was prevented, and
another advantage was, that when this coating was worn
off a fresh one could be added, which could not be done
before. The learned counsel then went on to show that
it was not for the bearing itself that he contended, but
for the application of an alloy, the basis of which was
t,n. Mr. Newton took out his patent. in May, 1843, and
specified at that time that the invention had been im-
parted to him by Mr. Rabbitt. The invention was soon
pirated, and in 1845 a case was tried at the Liverpool
Assizes, before Mr. Justice Creswell, for an infringe-
ment of the same patent, which was gained by 'elle
plaintiff. Three or four years after the patent was taken
out Baron Vaucher intimated to Mr. 'Wood, the patentee's
agent in London, that their patent was an infringement
of his, which was taken out in the year 1838. The learned
council then explained the principle and the object of
Vaucher's patent, which he showed was not at all for the
same purpose as Newton's, but for rendering pumps air-
tight by application of soft metal in lieu of the hemp and
tow formerly used for this purpose. A further proof
that the defendant never intended his patent for a bearing
for an axle box was that in 1850 the defendant brought
out a patent for the application of his invention of 1838 to
bearings, hut which at the time was shown to be a gross
invasion of their patent, but if the first patent were appli-
cable there would not have been a necessity for the second
patent.
Mr. Benjamin Fothergill, many years foreman in the
machine manufactory of Messrs. Sharpe and Roberts, of
Manchester, deposed that, by the old method, the fric-
tion of the axle or journal upon the step or bearing
(which was made of brass or bill metal, with no coating
of soft metal) was so great as to cause abrasion, a great
waste of oil, and destruction both of the bearings and the
axle. He explained the process of supplying the bearings
with the coating of soft metal. He also explained the
action of 1, cher's pump, a model of which was pro-
duced, from which it appeared that the action of the
piston rot was rotatory, similar to that of the axle of a
wheel.
After numerous witnesses had been called,
Mr. WATSON proceeded to address the jury for the de-
fendant. He said there were two questions for the consi-
deration of the jury. The first was whether the plaintiff
was the true inventor of the patent, and, assuming that to
be the case, then whether that patent had been infringed
by the defendant. Alluding to the patent taken out by
the defendant in 1838, the learned counsel contended that
the defendant's discovery was identical with Rabbitt's
patent—the application of soft metal to hard for the pur-

pose of preventing
_abrasion from pressure. With refer-
ence to the action in 1845, brought against the Grand
Junction Company, and alluded to al he (the learned
counsel) thought rather irregularly by his learned friend,
he contended that the Issue was found on a different point
altogether from the one Pow in consideration.
The first witness called for the defendant was Mr. Cart-
mall; the well-known civil engineer and patent agent.
From his evidence it appeared he had drawn up the speci-
fication as to both patents. _

The case, which occupied the whole day, was adjourned
to this morning.

PROTECTIONIST DINNER TO LORD STANLEY.
On Wednesday night the entertainment to Lord Stan-
ley, which has for some time been the subject of conver-
sation among Protectionist circles, as that which was to
inaugurate the noble lord as leader of the party, in which
the principles and policy of the Protectionists might be
laid before the country, took place in the hall of the Mer-
chant Tailors' Company, Mr. Baring, M.P., in the chair.
The invitation to the noble lord received the signatures
of 110 peers and upwards of 200 members of the House
of Commons. His lordship's health was, of course, the,
toast of the evening, and his reply the speech of the even-
ing. He spoke of the great honour which had been con-
ferred upon him by his adherents--of his " temporary
failure" to construct a ministry—of a similar honour
which was paid, thirteen years ago, to Sir R. Peel by the
same party, in the same hall, and under nearly similar
circumstances, when a united and powerful minority was
struggling against a weak and tottering administration,
though not absolutely so powerless as that which now
assumes to administer the affairs of this country"--
glanced tenderly at the period of 1846, when Sir Robert
abandoned his party—pronounced a glowing eulogy
on the late Lord George Bentinck—and then, referring to
the present state of parties in the House of Commons,
confessed that he saw no escape from the position in
which the country party is now placed ; " for, whoever
may hold the reins of office, there will be a weak govern-
ment, at the mercy of a majority who cannot combine for
any useful purpose, but who can always combine for the
purpose of destroying any government." The only
remedy for this dangerous state of affairs was an appeal
to the people. The country must not halt between two
opinions; it must say in whom it has confidence, and in
whom it has not. With the support of the country he
did not fear any combination whict. might be raised
against a constitutional government. Agricultural dis-
tress was then briefly alluded to, and grave doubts ex-
pressed whether the country is not really declining, instead
of prospering, under free trade. His lordship proceeded,
" I deprecate hasty and ill-considered and violent changes,
and in this course of downward progress in which we are
involved, though true prudence and true statesmanship
point, I think, not to the hasty reversal of all that has
been done, I would, at all events, cry ' halt' in that down-
ward course. I would say watch the progress that has
already taken place—modify the effect of measures, if they
have had a greater effect than even their proposers con-
templated, and prudently, discreetly, but firmly and de-
terminedly, apply, on sound principles, legislative relief
to those classes which your legislative action has made to
suffer. (Hear, hear.) How that relief may be afforded
this is not the tinie to consider. My hon. friend, the
chairman, has complimented me on having frankly, as I
felt it my duty to do, stated in my place in parlian ent the
general course of policy which I thought the goveri.inent,
in the present state of affairs, ought to adopt. To that
explanation I have little to add. My own views, un-
doubtedly, are that there is no course so simple and effec-
tive for removing agricultural distress, and, at the same
time, for returning to a sounder system, as, by the impo-
sition of moderate duties on foreign imports. at once to
afford a certain, though moderate, check to the unlimited
influx of those foreign articles, (when they are not re-
quired in this country,) and, at the same time, to obtain
from the foreigner, in imitation of all other nations, a
contribution towards the revenue of the state—(cheers)—
and to enable us to take off other taxes which press more
heavily and immediately on the springs of our domestic
and national industry." (Cheers.) Lord Stanley then
referred to th' " insolent and offensive aggression" of the
Pope, ridiculed the microscopic dimensions of the govern.
ment bill on the subject, told his auditory that he felt
bound thus to state his views " with the fullest and
frankest unreserve," and concluded with a glowing des-
cription of the blessings which would flow upon the
country from a Conservative administration. Mr.
Disraeli, " as one of the rank and file in the House of
Commons," afterwards made a brief speech, in reply to
the toast of " The Members of the House of Commons."