The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-08-04 00:00:00

StAtr.SMAN,

MEI:PING jIEcH. Mrs TJ ADM L'SS THE

QUEKS.

As the gross ili.:tortion of a tninisterlal riper, et
ciecumn ince, it wonld hare coutte• tea with this meet-
ill is Is directed more attentiou of the public to the
occurrences than they would hate Otherwise obtained,
we think it proper, to recent (nether misrepresentation
on the sobje..t, to present one readers wit'a a copy of th!.
resolutions aprced to at the meeting, ttitlont offering
either ronnnrndation or comment on the expediency
of the meeting, or on the stile of the resolutions.

.4SWZES.
NI4I ritle3 COURT, t flt!T 9.

: Clime e•ltt,N It,ruUMS, and s s;'eeial Jury.
nits an action in-
by the plaintiff against the defendant, to re-
cover damages for an alleged infringement of a cer-
tain patent granted to the plaintiff in May, 1819, for
improvements in the ordinary engine-loom for the
manufacture of figured rib: mils. The parties are both
extensive riband-:manufacturers, residing in Coventry.
Ihe case was stated by Mr. 'Sergeant VAUOIIAN,
who briefly pointed out the nature of the improve-
ment on which the claims of the plaintiff was founded.
lie could not, he observed, enter sery minutely into a
description of the improvement which the plaintiff had
introduced in•o thi particular beam., of manufacture,
but his deficiency in that respect would be supplied by
lie evidence. The learned Serje'int then animad-
verted on the great loss which Cie plaintiff must sus-
tain if the defendant were allowed, by an infringe-
ment of the timi.ou'ited property of his client, to
manufacture that description of riband which his im-
proved ntarhinn w. s capai,lr of pro !u: ing. He would
give to the Jury clear proof tLat a ;,:itent for the im-
proved instrument in question had hero granted to
his client, and lie would then cali on-11.etts to return
such a verdict as would secure hi.:. from Ow loss which
lie mast inevitgldy sustain if the defendant were
allowed to persevere in his infringement.
A copy of the specification of the invention enrolled
in the•Coert of Chancery was then produced ; but as
the plaintiff failed in proving that it had been regw.
larly compared with the original enrolment, which is
required by Cite rules cif evidence—
Chief-Ita-on Ittcnanns stopped ti:: range. It wa',
Iry observed, impossible to receive a document in evi-
dence, the mewl. of which was not ineoutestilly proved
to be in unison with. the original instrument.
The plaintiff was, in conseisitenre, n
The remainder of the day in thi . Court was occu-
pied with criminal causes of tri pithiic interest.

fIII3I:NAL 811 K.

A person of the name of Bullied was indicted for
a highway-robbery on a man name!! E:ains, at a certa'u
road near the village of Ostrestry, in this county.
The robb:ry was in itself trivial; hut the contrariety
of evidence which was minced on either side rev-
dere.: it rather in:ereatin The prisoner, a man •of
respectable family, and who was very genteelly dressed,
was, it appearetl, in the habit of selliag babes at the
tlitfertnt fairs in this comfy; anal, in the pursnanee
of his usual avocation, had attended at the latz. fair at
Oswestrv. lie prosecutor liai:petted to he there at
the same time; and, on his return from the fair, was-
stopped by a person dressell like the prisoner, and
robbed of the property which be had ain't him.
Many witnesses swore, from the appearance of the
prisoner, that he was t:te man who had perpstrattol
the rol.here. In :,.niiiver to the case of the proseeatinat
no less than ten witnesses were &Jed, of highly
respectable character. u ha proved a complete al' 4 t
and the last of these witnesses prayed the whole
mystery of the case. From his evidence it appeared
that the dress of the prisoner, which ova- a frock-eoat
with a velvet collar—s thing very titio.nal among the
peasants and manufacturers of this county. and which
had been particularly remarked by several of the wit-
ors,ses for the proaecdtion—was not peculiar to him
alone on this net..shin ; for :lie witness depesed that
a man was selling- brae es it; the fair, end mho was
about the saute height and shape wilt the pri•oner,
wds dressed in a similar way. The evidence of the
he'ng so stronr, and the respectabiii'y of the
prisoner's character bring so decidedly spoken to,
joined with the cireinti.tanee of there being another
di an in the fair similarly h.:biter!, induced the jury to
return an immediate verdict of sot greiksi, which was
received with very evident marks of satisfaction by a
very crowded Coml.
Joseph Richards and John Sturrney were capitally
indicted for breaking into the titeelTi...e house of Mr.
John Jarves, of Banbury-street, Birmingham, in the
day-time, and stealing property to a considerable
amount. The prisoners were seen ne.:r the premises
of the prosecutor, with bundles in their possession,
about the tinie the robbery was committed; and when
they were apprehended their shoes were found.to roe-
! respond in form and size with a number of fo.ontarks
in the garden of the prosecutor, which the prisoners
had passed through.
he prisoner Richards said—My Lord, the officer
says my shoes fitted the foot-narks in the garden :
I'll be tl— if he did not swear that lie would. wake
• the shoes tit the marks when he too!: them of my feet."
'1 he officer denied that he had said any such thing.
Sturniey asked the judge (Barrow) to ask the officer
if other shoes than his (prisoner's) might nut fit the
marks ?
The officer replied—" I dare say mare shoes made
off the same last."

Richards.—" My Lord, the shoes the °Meer (Red-
fern) gave we to wear, when he took wine off, exactly
fitted me." .

Judge.—" You don't wean to sad• that Redfern
committed the robbery."
tticbards.—" He is as likely to have committed it
as myself; his shoes are the saute size ai tuy own ;
and, therefore, the marks are nn probf ag,:dnst ute."
he Judge summed up the rwideree, and the jury
found the prisoners Huilty—Dreth.