New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-01

OF the jury and suffered verdict and Judgment to 90
against him by consent, is entitled the face of
the esrh to have another trial There would be end
to litigation contrary rule prevailed There is
justice In the defendants suggestion on this point
What appears on the Records of Massachusettsi A
Judgment Tor Goodyear against Seaver & Knowlton
Dsys agents. for SJOo-and the costs entered by Days
consent
That is part Of the agreement But there stands
the judgment, and shows he had an opportunity of
testpg hi very matter What more can he done or
what more can be necessary 1t Is vain TO saw this was
collusion. Suppose it was 10 go out of the wsv and
make an admission 90 warraRtsble the right ha, been
established BY law. Can party who 10 "parsiesps GRIM
ms IN coliusive Judgment Gefeat it himsefi Pray
tell me In what book OF law any proposition so prepos
terou. can be teen.
M, Cutting" He can if you claim under the udg.
ment" 's
M. Wtbsfr-We claim under orr Patton, .ra d..
bsseech YOU charge ue with claiming any hing IA a
favor under Horace H. Day. We claim under onr PAT
ent and under the law and when he sets up the
nsnt which comes out fret in his answer he admits he
was party 10 IT, and then expects TO be released from
its binding obligations of cousop 10 which
he was party Never in any primer of the law a., nm
the most elaborate treatise proposition advanced
80 aohorrent 10 ths law or to justice deserving
the contempt OF mankind.
Now on the general question 1t is conceded bv N.
other Size that the CouIt of Chancery in Encasd or
here, has what Mr. Choate calls the sigsutc howe ~
gItnt al Injunction without jury or any aid f,ao,
Court oil Law lie contends however that the practice
a
irire hst until AFTER the verdict Of Jury ne,sstl
injunction viii net be srented Now We say there ia no
such doctlne sestl, invariaoe rule or eve, rr
tice In England o. here. (ReaGs)
Perhaps has been suggested il was intended IN 70
hege the Lquiy tribunal from the labor OF exauinng
the ques'icns Of TACT with Witnesses The Cbg1re~S
Court Is not sIit nG by jury in England and If case
inv Giving much con,exty OF evidence were 10 be tr5
ty the Chancellor II would impose upon aim a gre,t
labor, which lie gets rid Of by sending Il to be tired N
law. There Is mistake ia the gcntiemans Statement
., Il l. hardly worth While going bacA T. il woulj
az lesve have L taken aHy Other time II tho
section Is hcable, then il SHOVE strong reason for
sending these to TIE Jury in Eneaad 1t Is NOT so
viii state that statute Tiis prescription is in the ii
section Of tie Statute Of James J. But then the esceD
ton in favor Of patents for useful manufactures Is in
subsequent secon, and that subsequent section says
That the provisions Of the sha not extend to Let
tiers Patent tor new manufactures &c, provided they
have been according 10 law and miscellaneous to the
State by raising prices Of commodities at home hurt
OF trade or generally announcement (Reads)
That is whist is said 1t does bear however much
upon NE case and therefore my learned friends may
have II their own way
perfectly well settled that when Court of Equity
arecas Issues % trial q law, & yse has the power .