LAW INTELLIGENCE. ?"The Under Sheriff of Warwickshire returned that he had not levied a cc:LIM fine in consequence of having received a letter from the Solicitor, requesting that he would take no :teps as the matter was under conside- Tailor,. Mr. Hama Darrow deired it to be understood, that the Sheriffs were not at liberty to make such retire untations. ()fuer% .111 , 1 , 1 S were ako made on the want of precision with which reco.;ilizances were taken, in consequence of which the riwitir could not find the party to levy the fine, and the Under Sheritls were di rected to intimate to clerks:of magistrates, especially those actim; c.f. large towns, that more precision yas ex)keete.l. lite Lord Chancellor will hear re-hearings and ap peals, and such Call4C3, pleas, demurrers, exceptions, and further directions as are set down before hint, al ternately, (except on Seal Days, and such days as his Lordship is occupied in the House of Lords) : Every day from Wednesday, February YI, to Wednesday, April 4, twin invlu•ive. First Seal—Tueschty, Feb. 20. Second Seal—Thursday, March 8. Thiid Seal—Thursday, March 22. Fourth Seal—Thur,day, April 5. Petitions—April S. Seals, &c. before the Vice Chancellor, after Hillary Tenn, 1821 : - _ Firia Seal.—Tuesday, February _o.—Motions : from Wednesday, Fch.Yl, to forint:ly, March 6—tauses. Seecond Scal—Thunittay, March B.—Mutioas, Further Directions andCattsei., Friday, March 9, to Wednesday, March 24. _ _ . Third Seal—Thursday, March 22—Motions: Picas, De murrers, 1-:•ct•ption,, Further Directions and Causes,Friday March 23, to IVedocsiiii), April 4. Fourth Seal—Thur,dB), April S.—Motions. Friday, April 6.—Petitions. MONDAY, TEE. 12, S. HALL (of Basford, Notts.) v. TOWLE and others. Mr. !fart moved for as injunction to restrain the defendants front pirating and using the invention of the plaintiff (who is partner in the house of G. F. Urling and Co. in the Strand), for improving thread or yarn, in infringement of the patent he had obtained for the exclusive use of that invention. The letters patent were obtained in November, 1817 ; and they stated that the object of the improvement was to remove the projecting fibres from every description of thread or yarn, and ren der it stronger, smoother, and finer. The plaintiff had expended in experiment, anterior to the completion of his invention, 50001. and upwards; and, front the date of the patent till the present time, had been in undis turbed possession and use of the invention, with the exception that, for some time past, the defendant had been secretly using it, which, if they could do safely, it was very natural they would , for the plaintiff's inven tion had obtained a celebrity of a very distinguished kind amongst those who were fanciers of lace under the name of ' Urling's new impros ed lace.' It was a subject of very great profit to the plaintiff, and his lordship might form some idea of its excellence, as her late majesty had granted to titling and Co. permission to supply her exclusively with lace, her majesty being a good judge of specimens of mg kind. This appointment, together with other circumstances which had givers a decided superiority to " Urling's lace," had induced the attempt of the defendants to infringe upon the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff was not able for some time, to bring it home to the defehdants; but in the course of the present month of February, in consequence of his suspicions, he placed a ladder at night, against a witiduw of the defendants' manufactory, and there very clearly saw the defendants carrying on tli^ proce,s of improvement in vented by him. This was continued by four oilier per sons, and certainly the very midnight mode of carrying on the work was strong evidence of concealment, and an intention of pirating the iurention. His lordship }lasing examined several specimens of the lace thread of which it was manufactured, granted the injunction. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. FRIDAY, FE8.16. Radial! Cliffse.—The King •. 11. Bunt Mr. Walton opened the pleadings. lie said the in. formation was filed by the Attorney General to recover ' two penalties of 1001: each from the defendant, one for making an imitation of coffee fur sale, and the other for having sold the same. The Solicitor General stated the case, and then called his witnesses. Samuel Linstead stated, that he is an officer of Ex cise, and in the month of February last he went to the defendant's manufactory, 97, Broadway, Surrey, and asked to buy 141 b. of breakfast powder; he saw the defendant's son , who said they did not sell less than tBlb.--he then bought that quantity, for which he paid Bd. per lb. The defendant's son told him it was better than coffee—that they were selling a great deal of it, and had sent a great deal of it to Liverpool. The witness went away, and returned with other excise office's, one of whom, W. East. seized all the powder that was matimactured. or that was in the pro cess of manufacturing. When the olicers came to seize, and told the de fendant their business, he said, if they did loot seize immediately, lie would kick them out. On his cross.examinat ion by Mr. 11111, he said, neither defendant nor his son called the powder coffee, our was there the least concealment. Die witness asked for breakfast powder. W. East, surveyor of excise, proved the facts of the seizure, as stated by the first winless. Mr. Hubert stated. that he is a dealer in coffee, and accustomed to eaaniine coflee, and all its mixtures, by chemical tests. Pro.lnced part of the powder seized, which had been given him fur examination ; said, it resembled coffee in many particalars, and if one-fourth real coffee were mixed with three-fourths of the powder, he would not, by utuking it the usual way, and drink ihg it. be able to discover the difference between it and real collee, but should for that purpose have recourse to THE NATIONAL REGISTER - _ chemical tests. li. mg asked the value of defendant's powder, he said rye varied in price last year from 345. to 4th. per quarter; but taking it at -10 s. the defendant's powder would not be worth 2d. per lb. A return of the seizure and condemnation for want of claim was read and put in as evidence, winch closed the case lot the crown. Mr. Hill addressed the Jury for the defendant. tie said, that had not the Jury heard something of this matter out of court, they must be surprised to hear that any man should be brought into court for having made a powder, not as an iinitation of coffee, but which might be used instead of coffee—that no man should be al lowed to make his breakfast of any thing like coffee, unless he had that expensive article. It was very much the same as if it were sought to recover a penalty from a own who could not afford to drink wine, because he presumed to regale himself with porter. The statute was made because coffee-dealers were in the habit of mixing other articles with coffee, and thus defrauding the revenue and the public, but in this case there was no deception, the article was ,old Mr what it really was, and it would be monstrous to say in any country we..a. of Russia or Turkey, that a poor 111.111 ahould go without his breakfast, rather than mai:e it of a wholesome be verign produced from grain of our own production, tiry consumption of which tended to relieve our agriculture, which it was known, was in a state of great distress.— The lea, tied gentleman called the defendant's sou, 'l'. Hunt, who proved that his his father never called the breakfast powder coffee, and that he desired the witness never to call it so. _ Oil his cross-examiaation by the Solicitor General, he said his father had not given him any reason for de siring him not to call the powder cutlee, but he never did call it so. No other witnesses were called on the part of the defendant. The Attorney General said, the law on the case was sn clear, that verdicts had been found on it by five, six, or seven juries, beiure whom similar questions had been brought, without any contrary verdict having been found. Mr. ibronGerrow charged the jury. that ihe law on the case was clear, and if they believed the facts, of which there could be no doubt, they would find a ve - diet lin the crown. The Jury immediately found a verdict fur the crown on both counts.—Penalties COURT OF TUESDAY. FEE. 13. _DAVIS, V. TAGQ. This was an action of as . summit, arising out of the sale of certain articles of jewellery. The defendant, who is a journeyman jeweller, dab bling a little on his own accouut,sold a variety of trinkets, to wit, a neck-chain, a seal, a ring, a watch-key, and a pair of ear-rings; warranting the same to be " verritable gold of Ophir," of the fineness at least of 80$. per ounce. Some time after the purchase, (ready money having been paid for the goods), the plaintiff learned from a friend, who was a jthlq,e of such matters, that he had been bamboozled. The articles were then submitted to the inspection of a refiner, and the artist declared, that they had been bought at nearly twice their value. Mr. Scar lett now, seek ing to recover seven pounds as the differ ence between the actual worth of the jewels, and the leigned value which had been put upon them by the de.endant, relied upon the warranty of gold at sus. per ounce." John Davis, son of the plaintiff, proved the warranty . ; and evidence was given to show that the trinkets in question were worth very little more than half the money that had been paid for theta. .:tlr. Denman, for the defendant, contended that the jeweller's words—the 80s. per os.—were not to be taken as a warranty of the articles, but merely as the words of course, such as a tradesman would naturally employ for the recommendation of his goods. Tile Lord Chief Justice held that the assurance of the defendant amounted to a warranty , and that a trades man had no right in disposing of his wares to indulge in assertions amounting to falsehood. The Jury, by consent, found for the plaintiff— Damages 4411. WEDNESDAY. TM 14. STEVENSON V. MOONSET. Thi> was an action for money had and received.— 'llte defendant, who is an eminent auctioneer, put up to sale an estate b elonging to a gentleman of the name of Lsdale. The conditions of sale were, that 20 per cent. deposit should at once be paid upon the amount of the cost ; the remainder of the purchase money to be forth- coming within a stated period, at the expiration of which the title was to be conveyed. Under these con- Jitions, the plaintiff, Mr.S!eveusots purchased the estate. he paid 1,5001 as deposit ; but when the time came for making good the title, it appeared that Mr. Esdale had a lieu fur sCol. a year upon the property. Mr. Stevenson insisted that the incumberance should be removed; Mr Esdale offered an equivalent, which was rejected ; Mr. Stevenson then declared off his bargain ; and, to recover back his deposit money, now brought his action against Mr. Art. Mr. Gurney, after stating that all the patties—vender, vendee, and auctioneer—were in chancery, submitted, fur the defendant, an informality on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Stevenson had gisen notice that, unl e s s by a certain day the title should be made good, he would abandon the contract; but, after giving that notice, he entered into neeciations for an agreement. The ne• gociations, which consisted of a proposal b, Mr. Esdale to vest stock for the payment of Mr. Esdale a annuity in the hands of trustees, and of a demand by Mr. Stevenson of a reduction in the price of the estate—those negoci ations certainly did not end in any settlement; but the mere entering into negociation,Mr. Guittey, contended, amounted to a wave of the notice of abandonment. The Lord Chief Justice did not think that any right had been waved by the subsequent negociation : and The Jury found fur the plinitifl—Drinages I,buul. CRIPPII O. ROTHWALL AND ANOTRIR. This was an action against the late Sheriffs of London, for the escape of a prisoner upon mesne process. Mr. Casherd, in opening the case, said that the action was only nominally taken against the respectable persons who appeared as defendants, the party interested being Mr. Michael Weaton,horse.dealer, of London-wall. Mr. Weston having accepted two bills of exchange for 2501. drawn by a person of the name of Marsden, was, upon those bills, arrested by the holder, Mr. Cripps. The Sheriff, however, instead of holding the person of Weston, or taking from him a bail-bond, suffered him to go at large; and Mr. Cripps, being by that neglect defeated in obtaining his money, now brought his action. Mr. Gurney, for the defence, called Mr. Michael Weston and his son, who proved that Cripps had con sented to withdraw the action ; and that it was in con sequence of such consent that no bail had been taken.— 'rimy runner said that the bills in question had merely been accepted for the accommodation of Marsden ; and that, since the alleged escape, Weston, the father, had been living, and carrying on business, at the same place, and in the saute manlier, as he had befote been accus tomed to do. Mr. Casberd, in reply, insisted that horse.dealers had more liberty of conscience than other men, and that their evidence should be received with much qualification. The Chief Justice told the jury, that if they should discredit the evidence of Weston and his son, then the plaintiff would be entitled to their verdict. It should be remembered, however, that NVeston the elder was, and, since the escape, had been, forthcoming; that the plaintiff might at once, if he had thought fit, have ar rested him a second time ; and tit t, consequently, nothing had been really lost but 111. I 55., the expences of the original process, which had failed.—Verdlct for the defendant. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY I`✓. BENNETT V. COLYVAR. This action was brought by the plaintifi, a stable keeper, against the Hon. G. Colyvar, otherwise Lord Milsintown, to recover 2701. for the keep of horses, at the rate of 4s. 6a. per day. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 24.51. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WEDNESDAY, FEB. 14. BREACH OF rROMISZ or MARRIAGE. WATTS F. PLATT. Sergeant Pell stated the facts of the plaintiff's case, which were briefly these :—The parties live at \Vest Drayton, and are in an humble line of life. In the year 1812 the defendant, George Platt, a farmer, met Jeminta Watts the plaintiff, at a dance at her uncle's, who kept the six-bells, public house, after which he visited her at the cottage of her mother, a very poor woman. She was then about 18, and he under 30 years of age. The mother at first wished her daughter to decline his ac quaintance, as she did not consider her a suitable match for a person in such good circumstances as the defem. dant. Ile, however, persevered, declaring that it was his intention to marry her, and actually purchased the ring for that purpose. The courtahip continued for upwards of eight years, until the defendant, without as signing any cause, took it into his head to marry another WOMIIII. After which he still attempted to continue his visits, and upon being upbraided by the plaintiff with his breach of faith towards her, he protested with tears in his eyes that his misconduct had been productive of snore unhappiness to himself than to her. Phis was the sub stance of the case proved by the mother, sifter, and uncle of the plaintiff, from whom, upon cross-examination it was attempted to be extracted that she had pe:mitted the defendant to take liberties of All improper kind with her. These attempts, however, totally failed, the girl's conduct appearing to have beets most unexceptionable. Sergeant Vaughan addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, but called no se The learned Judge (Dallas), in his charge, observed, in indignant language, upon the unmanly and cruel defence, attempted to be set up by the defendant, in endeavouring, after imputing to her the poverty of her parents, to prove his own infamy in seducing her its tier mother's house, which defence had not only but ought to recoil with vengence upon his own head. The Jury then found a verdict for the plaintiff-4)a. males TATLOR Y. STREET. This was an aCtiOnOrttheviarranty of a horse. The plaintiff, who was an attorney, purchased a horse from the defendant, who is a livery stable keeper, at Christ mas last, which the latter warranted sound, and safe to ride or drive. On the 12th of Jan. the plaintiff's gig, in which were himself, his wife, and niece, was upset by running foul of the Hampstead stage, owing (as stated by his witnesses) to his horse having become un. manageable ; in consequence of which his wife was much hurt, and the gig broken, which put him to the expense (including surgeon's hill, repairs of the gig, &c.) of between 201. and 301. Recalled several witnesses to prove that the horse in question was unsafe to ride. and unquiet in harness, and therefore he was entitled to re. cover damages for the breach of warrautry. For the defence several witnesses were also called, who swore that at the time he was sold to the plaintiff, the horse. although high-spirited and young. was perfectly quiet and free from vice, and that Mr. Taylor. in speaking of the accident, admitted that it occurred, through his own fault. After a great deal of conflicting !muttony had been given on both sides, and Sergeant Vaughan for the plaintiff, and Sergeant Pell, fur the defendant, had respectively addressed the jury at onnsi., siderablc length, his Lordship summed up, and the jury, first cousultibg, a few unitutes, returned a verdict for the defendant. Two instances have recently occurred at MilehAn► of children being severely burnt during the abscuce of their parents: one of the sufferers wits tight or nine year*