In the Rolls Court, on Saturday, I.ord Langdale decided, in
the case of Colville v. Middleton and others, that the deer in Livermere Park form part of the personal estate, and do not pass by the devise of the property; as the park has been made within the time of legal memory. In the same Court, on Tuesday, judgment was given in the case of Sharp's patent for machinery " for converting rope into tow." In this case it appeared, that Mr. Joshua Wordsworth had taken out a patent to effect the same object as that of Mr. Sharp, but by different means. Mr. Sharp afterwards obtained leave to amend his specification ; in which he embodied, as was alleged, all the valuable parts of Mr. Words- worth's patented process. Application was therefore made to the Master of the Rolls to take the ;Intended specification off the rolls. Lord Langdale decided that he had no authority to deal with the amend- ments in that manner ; and he dismissed the petition with costs. This decision, he observed, did not prevent Mr. Wordsworth from his re- medy in a court of law, provided the machinery added to the original invention was an infringement of his patent.
A case of much importance to joint-stock companies was decided in the Vice-Chancellor's Court on Monday. Mr. Preston, the owner of twenty shares in the Grand Collier Dock Company, had been threatened with the forfeiture of them for not having paid the last call. He ap- plied to the Court to restrain the Directors from forfeiting his shares, on the ground that they had not paid the amount of the former call on the shares, one thousand each, which they had taken for the purpose of passing the bill through Parliament, These shares, it was said, they only held in trust for the Company. The Vice-Chancellor, however, decided, that as there had been no regular transfer of them, it must be held that the Directors were responsible for the calls on the shares that stood in their names, and that the shareholders could not be compelled. to pay further calls until the money due on those shares was paid.
In the Court of Common Pleas, on Saturday, an action was tried which involved the responsibility of parties who do not present a banker's check for payment on the day it is received. Mr. Alexander, the owner of the repository in Chiswell Street, Finsbury, sold two horses to the defendant iu the case, on the 10th of March last, for 48/. The defendant gave a check on his bankers, Messrs. Young and Co., of Smithfield ; desiring the plaintiff, at the same time, to write the name of his bankers, Messrs. Whitmore and Co., across the check. The check was paid into Messrs. Whitmore and Co.'s on the 11th, and by them presented on the 12th ; on which day Young and Co. stopped pay- ment. Mr. Alexander therefore brought thd action for the amount. Lord Chief Justice Tindal said— If a party receive a check upon a London banker, he was bound to present it, at furthest, upon the following day ; and lie was not aware of any option on the behalf of the receiver to keep the check the whole of the day on which it was received, and then pay it into his banker's hands on the following day, so as to obtain an additional day for presentment.
The Jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
On Saturday, Michael Shaw Stewart Wallace, the brother of Patrick S. S. Wallace, was brought up at the Mansionhouse, as a party in the fraudulent insurance of the Dryad, and the wilful destruction of the vessel. Michael Wallace, who had absconded, was found by Roe, a Police-officer, in a small cottage on the sea-coast, near Lancaster. He was remanded until the commencement of the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court, and ordered to be kept separate from the other prisoners in the case.
At the Mansionhouse on Saturday, James P. Porter, a young man of very respectable appearance, was charged with uttering a forged check for the sum of 380/., purporting to be drawn by Messrs. Sanders and Panrucker, with intent to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The offence was fully proved. When he was taken into custody at the Bank, he said that he received the check from a person of the name of Brett, whom he knew, and who lived with his brother somewhere between the Westminster Road and the Kent Road; that he met Brett by accident, who asked him to get it cashed, partly in notes and partly in sovereigns, and to bring it to him to a public- house in the neighbourhood he mentioned, and opposite to the house in which Brett's brother resided. The officer who arrested Porter took him to the public-house, but no person carne to meet him. It was, how- ever, ascertained that a person called Brett had previously been at the public-house with the prisoner, but he had not since been heard of; and Brett's pocket-book with papers in it was found upon the prisoner. The case was sent to a Jury.
Mrs. Moroner, the wife of a captain in the merchant-service, who accompanied the late Mrs. M`Lean, (formerly Miss Landon,) to Cape Coast, applied to the Magistrate at Lambeth Street Office. on Thursday, to know how she should protect herself from the annoyance incurred by some gentlemen calling on her and insisting on the delivery of' papers connected with Mrs. M'Lean's sudden death. She said their language was threatening, and their conduct very offensive. Mr. Norton ad- vised her to call a Policeman when tl?ey next annoyed her, and give them into custody.
A half-pay officer, named Edmund Piers, was charged at Marlbo- rough Street Police-office, on 'Wednesday, with annoying the honour- able Mrs. Norton. The prisoner had written letters to Mrs. Norton, offering to mediate between that lady and her husband respecting the children, and had called several tittles ut Mm's. Norton's house in Bolton Street. He had been seen watching outside the house for several days ; and on Thursday he forced his way in when the door was opened. A Policeman was in attendance, who immediately took him into custody. On his promise not to repeat such annoying conduct,he was discharged. A letter front Mrs. Norton appeared in the Times yesterday, in reference to this affair, and explaining some inaccuracy in the report ; in which she says- " I was induced to give the person MEN; himself Captain Piers in charge, front an impression, arising out of r. pealed and most disagreeable circum- stances, that he was employed to annoy me. That impression w as the result of several strange 81111 paiufid incidents, which I detailed to the Abgi,trate; and which proved that my haa,e WIN watched, my servants tampered nith, and in two diffe,ent instattees the infittnous trap resorted to of enthavouring, by feigned haters 011 lalShiesS, to induce me p rsonally to attend at tut address which I learned from my servant (who attended in toy place) was WIC of a disreputald el aracter."
Mrs. N6rton then enters into her grievances, and oppression, and annoyances, le:mined from Lord Grantley, Mr. Norton's brother.
Previous page
