Court Of King's Bench, We...
tine ,Juages sat in the Urandjur-ytroom, tfieiqatrt'&ibg'Wian"tced for the adjourned eseions. TIRf0AFLD V. WRTGHT. This was an actiQn for the pri;e of c, mrabilhe for Hnanufaetlsrlng lace. According te the agreement, the {defeadant was to pay 700 guineas, by several instalments, fora nachine on the principle of those invented by H eatheote and Lacey,vwith Lacey's improvernents, and for a licence to use it, which then was sold at 40 guineas per quarter by the inventor. Tihe machine, with two sets of bobbins, was dehvered, and the first inttalment of 100 guisre" paid; but no Ilience was given, and without a licence the price of the tmchine would be abo4t ~30QI, f'inding he co4ld not recire a lipence, the defendant returnedi the machine, ietainiri thi h Qbbinsf ag a re- coin jrense for the first Instalrment wvhich he ha paid. 'rie plaintiff brouglht his action for the whele umii, which w?as resisted on the ground of fraud, and the jury found a verdict for the defendant. A rule tbr a new trial was obtatned, on the sug estion that the plain- tiffe hd, by ofsinRg atn indemnity to tbe deFendant, proyed the 0o4a ftde ofthetrasacion, The COS1SrON SEROEANT now shqwed cauEe against thii rule, and Ir. Sergeant VAU;KGHN argued in its sunport Thel COhaT ifugestled Othat thet case should be referred, on the prici e hatif hevalue of the bobl'ins and the use of the miachine exycee' d themlohney aid, the plaintiff should have &vaveict for such cress and ie did not exceed it, theverdict bhould stan4 for the defendant. Th prpoal was accepted, and ttpe as~e dispomied of ac-. cordingly. COURT Q} I;INI}'S BENCH:. WE rMEAT~rgU - 1