Court Of Chancery, Wednes...
The Times, 1824-05-20T00:00:00

LAWrv REPORT. rTlhe LORD CHANCELLOA asked Mr. Horne if tt.e parties woulc bring this case befote the House of Lords ? Ailr. HORNE said, they would rather have his Lordship's deci. sion upon it, but it was very possible that whatever party his Lord. ship decided against, would appeal to thc House of Lords. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it was a question upon thl construction of a will, of the greatest difficulty to be determined, The Judges of tht Court of Common Pleas had pronounced ont opinion upon it; and the Judges of the Court of King's Bench ail Opposite opinion. The words of the will were so extremely unin. teligible, and adnritred of such various constructionls, that he lared say people would be found to differ from him in wha!ever interpreta. tion he should give them. There was no case in the books which afrord. ed him any light in deciding it; and hesbould therefore like to hear what the twelve Judges would say upon it before he proncunced his opinion. However, as the parties wished him to give his opinion now, to which they certainly were entitled, although lie should be by no means satisfied with it himself without receiving the asssistance he had mentionted, he would give judgment in it on Saturday nioming. 1aRuNTON V. ROWN1E. Alr. RiCHATRDS moved for an injunction to restrain the defendant from sclling hats or bonnets constructed in the way invented bv the plaintiff, for which he had obtainetl his Aiaiesty's letters-patrnt in the year 1817. The plaintiff's affidavit stated that his invention con- sisted of the introduction of silk, in a peculiar nianner, into the plait which composed the bonnet; that the defendant had been for some time past in the habit of selling bonnets constructed in this way, and still continued todo so; and that tte deponent latelv went to the defendant's shop in St. James's4street, where be saw 5 rs. Robine, of whlom he asked to buy one of these bonnets; but she refused to sell it to him, saying that a she had becn threatened with an action for the infringement of Mr.Bruntou's patent, shie must decline selling them to any one who was not introduced to her by a friend, in order that she might be assurei her so doing would no, lead to an action. However, while deponent was in the shop, a lady came in who wvss known to Mrs. Robine; and thie latter immediately sold her one oi the bonnets in question. The LORD CHANCE LOR.-I think this is a case for an injunc- tion; but you mtist serve the defendant with a subpoena. I do not see, if we grant Injunctions for blacking to cover the feet. why w e should not also grant injunctions for bonnets to cover the head. CONvST V. HAT.RIS. Upon the application of Air. HBALD, his Lordship directed that the receiver should apply the funsI8 towards the payment of the per- formers, and the other current expenditure of the theatre. as usual, until the motion on this subject was heard on Friday morning. IN TIHE MATTER OF' Fjid$TS,. Alr. AGArt having concluded his replr inihiis case, which was an application to strike the naTnes of the @\es 'TFrost off the Rolls, for havitg (as alleged) sued out a yfncerteds . mmission ot bank- r'1Tt9'c U_. A CELO , cs 7 -. je The LoaD CzaycELLoR, if ,ppe&gtif the high character which tbe elder Al r. Frost bore on the r6rtffern circuit, proceeded to make some remarks upon the.cas&, in the course of which he se- verely reprehended the conduct of any solicitor who would act in the double capacity of commissioner and solicitor in tie same case. His Lordshipo!lserved, it was quite clear that theobjectofthecommission in questron was any thing but to benefit the creditors. With respect to the bill of costs, there certainly were iteu s ot' it which ought trot to have been charged, and which the Masters of this Court would neYer allow; but he apprehended that if he were to strike every country solicitor's nanie off tie rolls, merely for intrducitig over. charges Into his bill, fie should thin the land of these gentlemen, par. ticularly in the North. However, as there was an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor respecting a decision upon trhe first commission, he should like, betore hre pronounced his opinion in the piresent case, to hear counsel upon that appeal. The argunient of the appeal was accordingly proceeded with, and Mctrpied the Court for the remnainder of the dlay. I COURT OF CHACER-V"WEDESDAY. AfAY I9. I _ IWrTHWAITE V. JERXIMSOV.