Blandford Weekly News. — 1886-03-27 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

AMERICAN AND HIS INVENTION. On Thursday, in the City of London Court, before Mr. Wondthorpe Brandon (sitting as locum tenni.: for Mr. Commissioner Kerr) and a jury, an act‘on was brought by Mr. Eugene Lewis and Mr. Samuel M. C. Godfrey against Mr. G. H. Daw, gun manufacturer, to recover the sum of SAO alleged to be duo in reepect of the formation of a company to work ait American patent. Mr. R. W. Harper appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Macleod for the defendant. In opening the Case, Mr. Harper said the principal plaintiff, Mr. Lewis, was the inventor and patentee of an article known as the Lewis Hand Fire-Extinguisher. The invention was first brought out in America, whore a company was formed for its promotion ; end in the early part of last year the two plaintiffs Mild over to this country with the view of starting a similar company to sell the extinguishers here. They were introduced to the defendant, who consented to assist in the floating of the company, on condition that various public tests of the patent should be made. This was agreed to, and the that test took place at Enfield. On that occasion the defendant suggested Bat matters might go all the more smoothly if the people who attended underwent a process of "lubrication "—(laughter) -- and, accordingly, a quantity of wine and cigars was ordered.-The plaintiffs contended that the sum which Om defendant charged for refreshments could not possibly have been expended, and hence they asked for the return of £l.O. There were other iteni. in the acoeunt relating to expenses of testa at Waltham Abbey and Peterborough, and also ene for for extinguishers supplied to the defendant, who had Fold some of them to Lord Burleigh. The latter item was not disputed, and the defendant paid the money into court prior to the hearing of the case. The plaintiffs' case was that, accuiding to the agreement entered into with the defendant they were only entitled to pay the co:4 of the first test at Enfield ; that there was on that occasion an overcharge for wine and cigars, and that the expenses of the subsequent tests were to be paid by the defendant —For the defence, Mr. Macleod conterved that it was preposterous to believe that his client, a tradelimau 01 respectability and long. standing in the City, would charge for refresh. merits which he had not supplied, and paid for ; and besides, it was incredible that he, though having a prospective interest in the company should it prove successful, would become rexponeible for all the costs incurred at test trials of the patent The action, he argued, was only an after thought on the part of the plaintiffs, and was the outcome of a dispute which had arisen as to the 1111111kler of ,:hars which should be allocated to the defendant for the services he had rendered.—Atter a protracted hearing the jure foiled for the defendant, anti the learned judge aivarded him costs.  Abut 500 workmen met the other day in front the Prefecture at Nice, to demand employment, 4ail insisted no seeing the prefect, who answered that he wan going to beaten the signing of contracts for public work,, and hoped thereby to relieve their charms. The men thee retired.  The executors of Mr. Mee, a hardware merchant, of Birm.nghsm, recovered recently at the Chelto, ford in-sizes £l,OOO from the Railway Passengers' Assurance Company on a policy of insurance. Mr. Mee was killed by falling from a train, sail the company, believing that he either committed suicide or •' wilfully expo.ed himself to peril," applied on Wed. nesday to the Queen's Bench Division to order a new trial ; hat the application was refused.