Law Report.
from v.v uur 'lnec un injunedcLon to restrain the defendiants fri E ig IS rigt of patent to a process which lie had invent- defendant8 hbad gmtrgs with metallicrollets, which invention the a e uccesfullY adopted and applied in eotton-printing nd r Ot airs to e 1s and detriment of the plaintiff rgainotthe g r. 1luQ s I, and Mr. ROTUPE'LT now argued tgainstt ctioT, and the Court was entreated to dissolve it, on c ICOunds theat the invention was well-.known, and commonly used, at the time when the PlaintifFobtained his patent, not only 'in this country, by a trh Blackstock of Manchester, but also in Ireland and moreover that,the specification ofthe patent was defeettve inso- nmuch that it stated the invention to be a new method of engraving vith metallic rollers, whereas, according to the plaintiff's own case rrepiaxation if?t anY, was not im the mode of engraving, but in the r. 9nDwELL and lr. Coz supported the injunction. aTe iORD CHAIVCELLt,, after hearing all the arguments, and ircato Rwae oe _inspecdon to the terms Or the patent and the spe- thePplaiuifas o Opinion that t,he injunction nmust be dissolved. If the laitiffhadnay roud ofrigt wich wvas not discoverable, by appyin th prncilesof hisjursditiOn to the matter in dispute, her waS atlberty to try the validity of his patent in a court of law. kr. S* Tr wELL saidi thlat the defendants ought to be directed Toheep an account in the mnean time, until the action should be tried. Thepose. CHANCELLOl would not give any direction for that D3ARF'IELD V. NIrCHOLSON, AND ICELLY. Thw defie2ndants had been enjoined by the Court from publishing a work called the ri"mn' son,becaused the aPr`cti B er, in the name of Petcr Nichol- n, beuse of a covenant by which the latter gentleman had been Pre!viously bound with the plaintiff in pblishing a work called the Architectugralrk,j ar. ; were led Om e orr. On the iast mention of this cduse we cerned tlieo MlI Ordrfrrectrion in our report of the case, so far as con- ordr fi ed traiig the defPe.nda?st Keelclay from pfurbli:shing the book canled the Practiral B Kllsfomdubirin The fodUowing is a literal copy of the orderas it at present stauds; the words in Italics being words added in consequence of the pre- sent applicatior, - IL let the injunction be awartle(i to restrain the' defendant Thos. Kelly from pu lishing or selling, in the name of Peter Nicholson, the book or work in the plea(dings moentioned, called the Pract.ical B1ilder, or ?My parts or part or number thereof; and also from em- ploying the defendant Peter Nicholson in writing any part of the ieeter-press, or designing any of the plates, of the said book or work called the Practictl Builder. And let the raid deiEndant Thomas Kelly be also restrained, in the name of Peter Nricholson, from publishing or telling any part ot'the said book or work called the PracticaiBuidc,d printedor enrraved sinee the filing of the plain. tff's bill in the cause, which has been written or designed by the thefendant Peter Nicholson, until the hetring of this cause, or until the further order of the Court." ANotice of a rnotion had bseen given for vary :ng the directions as t, the Lord Chancellor's order. . tr. HEALD now complained to the Court, in consequence of that notice, and comnentedt with some sseverity on Llie liberties which were lsiken in modern practice in regard to modelling the orders of th ,rurt. He would not, on this l:ast day of the protracted sittings, * del the Court, with arguments upon a mtich inore serious motion hz he had instructions to make_nannely, a motion? to commit the defendants, for a wanton and flagitious breach of the order of che Court: but lie did hope to sce some correction applied to this evil, which produced incalculable inconvenience and vexation. When he first appeared in this court, the practice was, that the order being OnCe pronounced and act down in writing, neitlher p irty could attempt to vary that, order; but since tile erection of the other Court, the practice of varying the directions had grown up witl it, and so Successfullj had it thriven, that in nine caises out of ten the order . actu y been varied, and very frequentwiv without any reason being shown to the Court for thusi, tamnpering with its power and The LoRtD CZAVCEL.ORaagreed with M1r. Heald, in what he had stated, as to the former practice, and reprehended in terms or -ome warmth, the custom of varying the order of the Court after being solemnly pronounced. So perfectly was he cotivinced of the nischievous consequenices of this practice, that from henceforth he was determined, tihat if a solicitor should be brought before him who had been f6und so dealing witth his order, thiouigh he were the nost respectable man in the profession, he would rmake hira lpia all the cozts of the application out of his owni pocket. r. HIiEAL D. approved of lis l,ordship's resolution, and hoped that he would make a meniorable example of this case. The SOLICITOR-GENFRAL and Air. WAKrEFIErn justified the motion for the defendants, because, in fact, the entry in the Re- gistrar's book was an actual devia ion from the order pronounced by the Court. Not only had the Court not restrained Ai[r. Kelly from publishing the Practical Buzilder, according to the terms of the order as there entered; but upon being asked what was tobe tlone with quantities of letter-press and copper-plates which were then prepared, the Court had expressly stated, that the defendants 1d only to blot out the name of Nicholson; enanitig, of course, that that being done, Air Kelly could publish and sell his book without further hindrance; whereas the order restrained him altogetherfrom suing or publishing any of the letter-press or engravings which had been prepared since the filing of the bill. The LoRD CHANCELLOR said, that the objeet of the injunction was to restrain the use of ilr. Nicholson's name in the publication, because that went in breach of hiis previous covenant with the plain- tiff It was with that view that the Court hadpronouncedits order; andtin doing so, had refused to reqwire anaccountof the profirs before the filing of the bill, because Mlr. Kelly could iiet have known of the former covenant when he entered into an agreenient with Air. Nicholson. Ilis LordshIp said, that he thought that he had sufficiently quali- fied the last partofthe ordler by the words "in like manner,' whicli stood before in the place of the wordl alto, and the other words ex- pressed in Italics, which woruls were now added with the consent of all parties to make the order clearer. LORDI BYRlON'S LY.TTERS. IlOBltOL'SE AND) SSANSON V. DALLAS. An injunction hAd been obtained bv the executors of Lord Byron to prevent tie defendant from publiihing private letters fron his Lordship. Mr. SAnI)WgI.I. now moved to dlissolve ehe injunction, because the letters were actually dteliveredI by the deceased nobleman to the defendant for the purpose, aid with, the admnitted design of publish- ing the particulars of his Lordship's life. llir. IIEALD contended that the letters were chiefly written by lord Byron to lii5 mother, as lIe had at first stated when the Court granted the injunction; and being private letters, in which the de- fetndant had no property or right, or at anty rate but a very limited one, aad certainly not such as to entitle him to publish them, lie trusted that the injunction would not he dissolved. The LORD CuAs SE LLO.R directed the aflitavits to be liandetd tip to liitn, and observed, that althotighi he could not sit after to-day in open Court, yet in this, and another injunction, respecting thc Gla. morganshtire canal, he had no objection to give tip a imorning or two in the course of the ten next ensuing to hear one cotunselon each side, b"t he could not hear more than one couinsel. lie extendled that oher to any other matters w-hich were so tirgelit as to be threatened riti great danger by delay of the proceedings till thc next sittings tf the ( Court. ZATV AR,P7pOT. COURT OF CHANC';FRV t' - - ? - --- , .Vuvu-r It'. nm,? -t-t-ARAPBUIty V. pmnx",. -