The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-12 00:00:00

~. .

labour ; John Osborn Quick was sentenced to 15 months'
imprisonment a id -hard labour ; Richard Jones and Jane
Clayton were sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and
hard labour. All the prisoners are to be imprisoned in
Lancaster Castle.

CASE OF DUVAL AND OTHERS.
Margaret Jones, Thomas Normand Rogerson, and Geo.
Wm. Duval, were placed at the bar. Mr. Dunlevy was
called upon to surrender, and he immediately answered.
The Jury were sworn to try the parties for the conspiracy.
No evidence was tendered, and they were acquitted and
ordered to be discharged.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded to try civil cases.
Two unimportant actions were tried, and the Court adjourned
at half-past five o'clock till nine the following morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
FURNESS V. ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND OTHERS.
This case was resumed this morning. Three witnesses
were caUed for, the Defendant who proved that the goods
were received at Preston Brook, having been delivered by
Shipton, & Co. at Liverpool, to the trustees of the Duke
of Bridgewater, and placed in the Duke's warehouse, there
to the care of Mr. W. M. Salt, as agent to 'Miss Pratt &
Sons. Mr. Salt said he heard of the insolvency of the
:Messrs. Pratt on the 2nd of March, and that then the goods
were converted bv the trustees of the Duke and taken from
under the care of Mr. Salt.
Mr. Knowles said, the question was rather for his lordship
than the jury, He contended that whilst the goods were in
the hands of the carriers, anything done by them could not
alter the transitus. The goods in question were delivered
at Preston, to Mr. Hargreaves the carrier, and addressed to
Miss Pratt, Stoke upon Trent. They were delivered by Mr.
Hargreaves to Shipton and Co., who delivered them to the
trustees of the Duke, and reached the warehouse of the
Duke at Preston Brook. It was contended, on the other
side, that there the transitus ended ; but he apprehended
that was a question of law, and for the decision of his lord-
ship rather than the jury. He contended that the transitus
did not end until the goods' reached Stoke.
Mr. DUNDAS said he was quite content that his lordship
should decide the case on that fact.
The learned JUDGE, after stating the law of transitu,
stated it to be his opinion that the transitus ended when the
,tends reached the warehouse of the duke's trustees at Pres-
ton Brook; and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to a
verdict.
A verdict'was accordingly entered for the defendants.
On the application of Mr. Knowles,
His LORDSHIP gave leave to the plaintiff to move to enter
a verdict for the plaintiff for £ll3, the value of the. goods, if
the court above should be of opinion that he was wrong in
law as to the transitus being at an end.
WRIT OF RIGHT.
RISHTON V. NesDET.—ln this case Charles Rishton was
the demandant, and William Nesbet tenant; and this is the
last case which can be tried under the old law of writs of
tight. For the former Mr. Dundas appeared, and Mr. Star-
for the latter.
On the names being called over, only three knights—
Uratnely, Sir Thomas Brancker, Sir Thomas Potter, and Sir
doshua Waltnsley answered, and nine recognitors.
Sir George Drinkwater was prevented attending from sick-
neas, and as the case could not proceed without the presence
e`v four knights, it was postponed until next assizes for want
of the appearance of a knight.
c. A PROCTER'S BILL.
the plaint '3ImPSOv.
MORETON.—This was an action brought by
ff, Mr. Simpson, Proctor, of Chester, to recover
from the defendant, an attorney in Liverpool, the sum of
t 44 12s. 7d. A verdict was found for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS.
SMITH V. WATsoN.—This was an action to recover com-
pensation in damages for the infringement of a patent. The
Plaintiff is Mr. Smith, the inventor of wire rope for standing
rigging in ships, and the defendant is a rope manufacturer in
:sundon. The pleas were lengthy. The defendant pleaded
-niongst other matters, that the plaintiff was not the in-
ventor—that it was not such a manufacture as the act of par-
liament contemplated should be made the subject of the pa-
Lents-that it was in use previous to the granting of the
Patent—that it was not a new invention, &c.
Hindmarsh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Currie
ter the defendant.
iMr• HINDaiARsw stated the case to the jury. He said the
aintiff sought compensation for the infringement of a patent
granted to him by his late Majesty, for the invention of wire
ropes to be used for the rigging of ships, and for a new mode
tt.i; fixing the rigging. The invention, he believed, had been
s'Scovered on the continent for the purpose of suspension
',ridges, but it had never been used for the rigging of ships
previous to the granting of the patent. It had been found
chat the wire rope was of great advantage to the rigging of
tagipS and vesses, that it was stronger with less substance
han hemp, and that it was not affected by the weather, and
describingcheaper the ode in wh the rich ope was manufactured,
and stating the nature of the specification, the learned gentle-
•Wllle the following witnesses :
• Quellan was then called, and said he was a master
riper,
,in Liverpool. He was upwards of seventy-two years
old, and had been in trade since 1805. He had rigged a
number of vessels, and was acquainted with all sorts of
p
fitted Great Liverpool, a steamer of 1,400 tons. The shrouds were
.eurn‘posed of wires in straight lines, of the same description
Jir.than Smith'spatent rope. He thought the wire rope was
better hempen. It was smaller, stronger, and held less
wind. Witness fitted the John Garrow, in 1835, and had
again refitted her since. The wire rigging had lasted very
He is now engaged in fitting the Oriental.
Cross-examined by Mr, R. Cum:a E.—Since steamers have
ucen in existence, chains and iron have been used about the
chimneys. Never knew a wire shroud:before.
„ George Bibles, op
a re-maker, Mr. Shaw, of the City of
Dublin Steam Packet Company, John Grantham, Esq., and
other witnesses, gave similar evidence, and testified to the
great utility of the plaintiff's inventions. They had been
applied to about twenty of her Majesty's ships, and thirty
vessels in Liverpool.
The admission of the patents, the specifications, and the
fact that the defendant had infringed them, were then put in
and read.
This closed the plaintiff's case. •
Mr. CURRIE then contended before his lordship that the
invention was not a manufacture within the meaning of the
statute of James, for which a patent could be granted, that
the specification applied to all metal used as rigging, and that
it was not a new invention.
The learned JUDGE, however, overruled the objections,
and directed a verdict for the plaintiff, giving to the defend-
ant liberty to move to enter a nonsuit, in case the court above
ahould be of a different opinion: to his lordship.
A verdict was accordingly recorded for the plaintiff—da-
mages ls.
Mr. HiNDNIARSH applied to his lordship for a certificate
that it was to try a right, in order to secure the plaintiff his
Costs, which was granted.
SMITH V. WATSON.
In this action, in which the same parties appeared, and
which was for an infringement of a patent granted in the
Year 1839, for the manufacture of twisted cord of rope formed
iron or metal wire. It was admitted that the defendant
had infringed the patent, and that the damages should be
one shilling ; but the defendant contended that twisted wire
lentPe or cord had been used previous to the granting of the
ter of patent, as, for instance, a toasting-fork and on a por-
ter bottle.
The learned JUDGE, however, directed a verdict for the
plaintiff, giving leave to the defendant as in the last action.
This
OF SURETIES.—PARKES V. RUSSELL.
and coal
was an action brought by Mr. Wm. Parkes, a farmer
an'
f
in the merchant, residing at. Nineveh, near Birmingham, e county of Warwick, to recover from the defendant, a
4a;Zer, residing in the same neighbourhood, the sum of
whi
Plaintiff 88. 7d., half the amount of a bill of exchange, to
th eh the defendant had
other signpeed
rsons his name
ho s
have-
become cosuret
in-
with
e w
solvent,
It MemMssessrs. Dundas and Martin. were for the plaintiff, and
ssrs Knowles and Cowling for the defendant.
aPpeared from the facts, as adduced in evidence, that
various times
had been in the habit of advancing money at
44rirs times to a person named Riley, and that in October,
or' RileY being indebted to Messrs. Greenway's bank, at
fo riviek, to the amount of £774 17s. ld., they pressed him
PaYMent, when the bank agreed to accept a bill for the
,s,_to due, on his giving security, and, accordingly, the bill
,T 7 signed by the plaintiff and defendant, and also by Riley
f hia father. Shortly afterwards, the plaintiff obtained
fr-tn ltileY a warraat of attorney, and. a bill of sale
eZer9's°' and in the following January judgment was
ee •e- Up, and the property of Riley was seized under an ex-
jutitmn- About the same time Riley was made a bankrupt, and
cronsequence of an action been ommenced against the
aue iff to recover the amount of moneys realised under the sale
arnemnprornise was effected on the plaintiff paying half the
thecTi:t realised, £1,050 being given up to the assignee under
bei_u t, the remaihing part of the sum being for goods which
d„'_unged to another party. In June, 1841, the bill became
ame, and the plaintiff and defendant were applied to for the
iPtehtlent• The latter said he was unable to pay the sum. but
burs Plaintiff would take up the bill he promised to reim-
thate him,, but had not done so. The defence set up was,
w,;,,waen the defendant signed the bill the plaintiff said he
take care he should not suffer, and that has the plain-
s,',,had raised money under the execution from Rily's goods
al Stockl he had paid the bill out of the proceeds of that
had, and therefore had no cause of action, for the £1,050
been paid to the assignee of Riley nntil last March.
Disloue. learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said the
hill, tiff was entitled to a verdict for half the amount of the

ijile jury retired, and after being out of court nearly an
Theor
court then for the
adjourned.laeinti. Damages, £l3B 10s.

The 1 CROWN COURT.—ESTERDAY.
o'clockearned Judge took his scat on the bench at nine
V.d
Plac d 44,d Hardman, previously convicted of burglary, was
soome yn
etta, the bar, and was sentenced to six months' impri-
mis,.
N.. CRELLIN'S CASE—SENTENCE ON COPELAND.
th- tartin Copeland (convicted on the previous day) was
soen brought up. His LORDSHIP stated that there were
learned Points in the case upon which he had consulted his
brother, and which he considered were worthy of
consideration ; but, after mature deliberation, they did not
think
that these points tended to palliate the charge of which
the prisoner had been found guilty. His Lordship then
Passed sentence upon the prisoner of twelve months' impri-
sonment in Lancaster Castle.
This concluded the business of the Crown Court, and his
Lordship proceeded to try
CLAIM FOR sornecivil.c es.
TH
E RECOVER: GOODS.
Atkinson v. Marshall.—This action was one in trover,
brought for the recovery of a sum of £376, value of 684
pieces of mouseline-de-laine
er-
mitted the defendant to take fwhich the p laintiff had Por
alleged he had retained. disposal, but which it was
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appearedfor the plaintiff,
and Messrs. Atherton and Brandt for the defendant
Mr. KNOWLES stated the case to the jury.
carrying on the business ofTahernPainauhfatciff-
tvas an elderly lady,
turer at Colne• In the year 1840, the defendant, who was a
commission agent, went over to Comae, with a view to obtain
the business of the manufacturers in that district. A gen-
Mrs.a A
tlemn, amid Askew, was with him, and introduced him to
tkinson, who let him have the goods to sell on her
account. The defendant afterwards sold them, and a claim
was preferred by Messrs. Potter and Lewin, of .Manchester,
who said the goods belonged to them. The plaintiff had had
dealings with the firm named, and it would appear that the
Materials (the warp and weft) of which the goods were ma-
nufactured, were supplied by them to the plaintiff, who was
employedto manufacture them.
Several witnesses were called, and proved the delivery of
the.goods, and the demand made by Messrs. Potter, and
their dealings with the plaintiff.
Mr. BRANDT contended for the defence that there was no
evidence of a conversion. Mr. A TH ERTON followed on the
°n me side. The defendant had refused to give up the goods
tithe ground that 1 e • s doubtful as two claims were
ed) to whom they' inwraeality belo lie uged.
'
submitted
hoc• was no evidence to go the jury.
his LORDSHIP,
eler, considered there was.
Ir. Ba.v,,inr having addressed the jury for the defence,
weSreeveral witnesses were examined, to show that the goods
manufactured by John Atkinson, the son of the
Plaintiff, out of materials su lied to him. by Potter and Co,
and that that house had no legal connexion in the transaction
with Mrs. Atkinson.
thMr. Knowles, for the plaintiff, said, there was no doubt
goods had been received by the defenant Mhall. It had also been shown by the evidence givend ars
on the part of the
defendant, that the business was transacted in the name of

Mary Atkinson, and not in the name of the son John, as it
was evident that the son could not carry on the business, he
having recently become a bankrupt. The son had, indeed,
managed the business for his mother, who was an aged
person ; but he was only an agent, he having a knowledge of
the business. The only question was, to whom the goods
sent to Marshall really belonged.
[lt appeared that the number of pieces manufactured of
the mouseline-de-laine, at Mrs. Atkinson's's, was 63,261
pieces, and the pieces short delivered were stated to be 1932.]
The Learned JUDGE drew the attention of the jury to the
principal portions of the evidence; and it being agreed that
an amount of £3 admitted to be due to the defendant should
be paid, and also that another smaller sum should be al-
lowed ; the jury immediately found a verdict for the plain-
tiff for the residue of the claim—namely, £241 6s.

BARTON V. ASHCROFI
This was an action for trespass and damage, to meet which
the defendants had paid 20s into court as a sufficient recom-
pense, but which was not considered sufficient by the
plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Barton, was a wheelwright, and bad suc-
ceeded a Mr. Squires as tenant of the farm of Wood-Side,
in Smithdown-lane, near this town, in May, 1840. Squires
had been blind, and being unable to pursue the farming
business, left the farm to retire to Cumberland, his native
country. Previous to going, he sold his farming utensils,
&c., by auction, and amongst other articles sold was a tur-
nip-cutting machine, which was knocked down to the
defendant for £3 10s., which he paid some time afterwards to
the auctioneer, leaving the machine however on the farm until
December last, when he went and demanded it. The farm-
servant present, an old man in plaintiff's employ, refused to
give it up. Defendant had taken with him five other men,
and on its being refused took the farm gate off its hinges,
and seeing the article in the shippon, by a hole through the
door, forcibly opened that door, bending the lock and injuring
the fastenings. The plaintiff, it appeared, was at the sale,
and knew that the defendant had bought the implement ; and
the former considered the 20s. enough for the trespass and
damage, which latter was proved to be very little. The jury,
on hearing that all was again put to rights in half-an-hour
by the farm-servant, whose wages were but half-a-crown a
day, thought so too, and returned a verdict for the defendant
on both counts.