The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT or CHANcEtty, Nor. 26.

RAY-MARKET THFATR
MORRIS V. COLMAN.
This cause stood for judgment upon an exceptioit
taken to the Master's Report, which Aloud that Mr.
Colman had not consented to the sale of Mr.Tahour.
din's share of the theatre to the Plaintiff.
Ili; Lordship gave his decided opinion against the
Master's Report, and in support of the exception
filed thereto on the part of the Plaintiff on a former
day, and now stated that his minutes were made for
the Registrar, the words of them being taken from
the very words' of Mr. Colman's own statement of
facts delivered in before the, Master. •

• 13 INIiIWPT Prrinoss.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, it might be im.
portant to the profebsion to be informed that, int.
mediately after the next Seal; he bh o uld hear alt
those Bankrupt Petitions which had for their object
the staying-of Certificates, and superseding Commis-
sions.

DRAINER v. plume. •
Sir Sssturt llositia.l- stated, this was the Yeti-
tion of the Plaintiff, who had applied for a Patent
for an improvement he had made in coact-wheels
and coach-springs; the Defendant had put in a ca-
veat, claiming that he was in possession of the same
secret. The question was referred to the Attorney-
General, who decided that the PNiat'ffs's plan was
quite different from the afendaet's, as it related to
the wheels • after this decision the Plaintiff and De-
lleadant had a conversation relative to their inven-
' tion •el coach-springs, when the Plaintiff said, that
by his invention there was no meta!lic substance
• used, but something that he (the Defendant) could
not exist *without, on which the Defendant replied,
he knew what it was, for it was the saute as his in-
vention, namely, coact-arca dr, on which the Plain.
tiff said he was willing to have their different plans
laid before an arbitrator, and if he thought they
were both alike, the D4enclaut should be a joint pa.
tentee. The arbitrator decided that they were not.
alike, as the Defendant's plan merely consisted of
condensed air, confined in leather bags and bladders,
quite different from the invention of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff then applied for a patent, and the De-
fendant entered his caeca', to get rid of which tine
present application was brought. It had been al-
ready decided by his Lordship iu a case of a patent
for sugar refining. One of the party said he was put
iu possession of the secret bpan American, and the
other asserted he was put in possession of it by a
Frenchman ; but the Cart determined that the party
who applied first for the patent was entitled to it.
The question at present w 4 a similar one, and his
Lordship had only to decide the same point over
again.
Mr. JouvsoN opposed t!c. motion.
The Luau CHANCELLOR Or served, that he was,
and had always been of opinion, thfat when two per-
sons in trade were in possession of tire same secret,
the party first app!‘ ing fnr a Pate's: was entitled to
it : under which consideration he would grant taw
prayer of the Petition.

COURT oi, k PiG*s BENCH, WESTMINSTER V0v.96.

1H fIUttItOWDAVE .I RD ()Turns.

Sir ‘V. G tome; showed c tuse against a itule
that had been obtained herein, to set aside an award
made by arbitrators-, to wham the pollee in dispute
had been referred. The Rule hid hive obtained
upon these grounds :—.that' the areitraters had
found a.balence of •6251.- ss. Id. to be in f hehands of
Borrowdale and Co. whereas the actual balance-was
19,1081. 9s. 2d.; that they had awarded certain
portions of an agreement, which had been executed
between the inning; tribe null and void, when the
contrary was the fact; and that certain discounts ow
expenditures had • been allowed to the Defendants,
whea, in truth, they Were not entitled to them.—
Without entering into a minute, mad possibly an
unnecessary deedl of the whole case, he would
simply state, that the question in dispute had
arisen upon accounts, connected with proceedings
respecting an I:ast India ship named the Surrey.
Defendants were the '6 husbands" of this ship, pay.
ing all the tradesmen's bills, in fact, discharging all,
the disbursements couttected with the vesvel. To
enable them to defray these expences, the persons
interested in the vessel had been accustomed to
make advances ; and upon the ultimate attempt at
an adjustment of these necounts, it was, that the
differences which led to the award had arisen. As
to the question of balances, they Leing so materially
different from these set forth by Captain Cumber-
lidge, the truth was, that when Borrowdale and Co.
had rendered their account, they•held in their ha.eit
a very large amount to pay debts, for which they
were answerable as husbards, as before-mentioned,
to those tradesmen who niioe have supplied the Sur-
rey with necessaries for out-lit, Ste. Hedged as they
had been, they felt themselves justified ie retaining
that large amount for such pie peses ; and subse.
quently they had actually paid the bills for e hick
they retained the money, therefore the awed had
trultstated, that the balance Was 6251. As to the
second point, certain parts of the agreement had
been awarded null and, void, in consequence of
Plaintiff himself having departed from specific terns.
Oh the last point; the Learned Center man stated,
that theelisenunts had been received by Defendants
for prompt payment to sundry tradesmen, who would
have otherwise given them what they were en+ itled to, a
lon credit. To discounts on sireear accoetes, on
former occasions, Plaintiff had previoualy often as-
sented as a correct and fair proceeding.
Mr. Nei was about to reply in support of the
motion, but having observed, that all that was re-
quired by his Client was an equitable adjustment of
these various accounts, he being ready to refer thern
to any Gentleman bf the Bar.
1 Sir W. GARROW stated, that his Clients wanted
no more.
The arguments, of course, did not proceed fur-
ther, it belie; mutually determined ou, te refer all
the points in dispute for setts ment to some Gentle-
Mali of the Bar.

TUE I:ING V. AND HARVEY.
Mr. SCARLrTT, Mr. BROUGHAM, and Mr. Wn3 ys
skewed cause against a nee nisi, which had been ob-
tained by the Solkitor-General on a former day, call-
ing upon the Defendants to chew cause why a crimi-

..>