The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-08-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CIYANCERT, Avn.l7.
LAcrY Alth HEATHCO Vr V. NU NN, DROWN) AND

Fit V.I:3IAN•
Sir SAstutr. ROMILLY moved to dissolve the W
pm, tion recently obtained in the Plaintiffs to restrain
the Defendants from wing certaidmachines for the
manufacture of Lace Ni;t; similar to the Bucking-
hamiltire Lace Net, upon the grounds of such ma-
chi, e infringemestt. upon certairr Patents

graated to the Plaiutilk.. .
The Learned Counsel stated, that it appeared by
the answer of the Defendanti, and by various affida-
vits, that some important faces had been, omitted to
be stated to his Lordship ow the application for this
injunction, and amongst others, that the Defendants
had, in April, 1811, obtained a patent for the ma-
chines which they were using, and which the Plain-
tiffs stated to be an invasion of their patent previous-
ly obtained; that the Plaintiffs had entered a caveat
against the granting such patent ; that both parties
accordingly at that time attended.his Majesty's Soli-
citor-General, who thriving inspected their respec-
tiveldanS,' and being of opinion that the patent ap-
plied for by the Defendants was not an infringement
upon4the Plaintiffs') granted the Defendants' patent
accoidittgly ; and that the Plaintiffs, from 1811,
knesPthe Deendants were in the enjoyment of such
patent.. These facts they altogether suppressed,
and he' conceived that if his Lordship had been ap-
prised of thews the injunction would not hive been
granted.
It also appeal*" by the Defendants' answer, that
a modtiof their machine had been completed in 18177,
and that the Plaintiffs did not obtain a patent for
their invention untillBoB, and that the whole ap-
paratus and (as Defendants believed) almost every
movement of their machine were different from the
Plaintillis that Defendants were enabled to make
lace of as many breadths upon one machine as they
thought proper, but that the Plaintiffs could only
make one given breralth by one machine ; AM. the
Dellaoleasts ounid make a perfect selvage or eflee,
wht.reas the Plaiutitte' lace could not he made with-
out a very rouaa r %moven one, which must be cut
off before it enald-be used, sand that these advantages
arose from the entire difference in the construction of
the respective mathines.
Mr. fiver and Mr. *HORNE on the same side
Mated, that. it • also; appeared the Plaintiffs applied
for a. Patent for some improvements on their machine
in November lait‘lendthi 'Defendants attended be-
fore the .Stiliaitor-Ciendral tie oppose such Patent,
when the -infertile& the. Defeirilaitts that
it did not interfere arith the 'Defendants' Patent, who
were therefore content to let them take it on that
understanding.
The Lose. CBS:enLIAR interrupted the Plaintiffs'
Counsel, and said be was clearly of opinion that he
ought not to grant an-injunction in.sach.e,,case, un-
less the party bad ;brought an action aed succeeded;
and-heiaiti it upon these grounds, that where* per-
son had obtained a Patentvanother bad no right to
an injunction to prevent his laying the exercise and
enjoymeet of that • Patent when he itad stood by and
permitted the use of it without any proceettine at
law. The Plaintiffs had an issue tried before thJSo-
lkitor-General. It they were ditq,..atisfied with his
opinion, or 'hat of the Attorney-Getteral, they had
an appeal to the person holding the Great
Tin re it is tried also, but then, if that Patent is
granted, it would be the most preposteroui thing in
the world if, on filing the same affidavits as had been
filed, the Chancellor should give credit to those affi-
davits, for the purpose of immediately granting an
injunction on the ground' of that boing.a .piracy of
the former Patent, which the Solicitor-General, or
the Chanoellot had just determined it was not.
The injunction must therefore be dissolved.
XX-PARTE WARING AND aTIIERS,' INTfit• NATTER OF
DRICKWOOD AND CO. AND DV SHIACKEY `ANA' CO.
Mr. Leamt stated the present to be a .question,
probably airs great importance as had ever tome be-
fore the Court. Bracken and Co. previous to their
bankruptcy, had a drawing account-with Brickwood
and Co. as their bankers. • On the 7th Of 'July, 1910,
a commission of bankrupt was is-sued against Brick-
wood and Co. and on the 2d of August following a
commission of bankrupt was also' issued against
Bracken and Co. At the time of Brickweod and
CoNtankruptcy they had accepted bitla drawn by
Bracken and Co. to the amount of 230001: as an in-
demnity for which they held ,short bills to the
amount M 21,0481. balance on a cash'account 67661.
and they hat, also in their hands the title deeds of
certein property, a nic'i bad since been sold for
4tcill. It thuS appeared that the securities in the
heads of Btickwood and Co. were amply sufficient
to te.ver the acceptances which they had come under
for Brerken end Co.• it being, however, clearly
understood that the shortbills deposited 1t Bracken
and Co. a ith Brickwood and Co. were intended as a
Pere indemnity against the acceptances granted by
Brick wood and Co-to Bracken and Co. to the ex-
tent of their actual advan&s, and os such advances
tould now amount to no larger a sum than. the di-
vidends payable on. such accoptances out of their,
estate. His Lordship, upon the 25th of January,
1811, made an order upon the petition of Bracken
and Co.'s assignees, to ahis efffeet—that the assignees
of Brick wood and Co. ,sheuld kik, distinct accounts
of the general estate of Messrs: .Brickwood and Co.
and of the proceeds received And' to be received by ;
• them on account of the short hills due to the assig-
;tees of Bracken and Co. and that they should account
with and pay to the assignees of Bracken and Co.
such surplus as might remain from such proceeds,
after payment of the dividends due to the severel
holders of the hills drawn by the said Bracken and
Co. upon Brickwood and Co. The present peti-;
Cotters are the holders of those acceptances of Brick-
wood stud Co. to Bracken and Co. and being advised
that they individually, and not the assignees, ori
general estate of Bracken and CO. are entitled to
the relief allowed to these assignees by the above
order of his Lordship of 'lath of January last, they
made the present application to his Lordship, con-
ceiving that they had a right to stand in the same si-
tuation, and to avail themselves-of the securities, as
the holders of the acceptances, which Messrs. Brick-
wood and Co. would have been entitled to do, had
they been solvent, and paid those acceptances when
ue. They therefore prayed his Lord-
much of his said order as directed

.
I
they became di
ship, that so