Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

1851.

IN RE BRIDSON'S PATENT.

7th Feb., 1852.*

evidence is not satisfactory, and that some further inquiry will be necessary, but that is for their Lordships to determine at the hearing. The application is quite wild, and must not only be refused, but with costs.

The petition for prolongation was afterwards withdrawn by the Petitioners, and no hearing took place. Two only of the Objectors served the Petitioners with notice of their intention to apply to the Court for costs of opposition.

Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Webster, for the Objectors, applied for costs; they relied upon Macintosh's Patent (a).

Mr. Edmund F. Moore, in opposition,

Submitted, first, that it was a case for indulgence, as the petition was withdrawn before the hearing, costs in the case cited being given only at the hearing; and, secondly, urged, in the alternative, that only those of the Objectors, who had given notice of their intended application, were entitled to costs.

Lord CRANWORTH:

It appears that there is no practice which renders it necessary for Opposers to give notice of their intended application for costs; neither is there anything which can justify us in refusing costs of opposition.

* Present: Lord Cranworth, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan.

(a) 1 Webs. Pat. Rep. 739, n.

The costs, therefore, of all the Objectors opposing the petition must be paid by the Petitioners (a).

(a) In Westrupp and Gibbin's Patent, 1 Webs. Pat. Rep. 556, costs of the Opposers were given at the hearing. So in Downton's Patent, ib. 567, costs, occasioned by an unsuccessful opposition, were allowed to the Petitioners. See the next case.

1851.

IN RE BRIDSON'S PATENT.

IN RE HORNBY'S PATENT.*

IN this case a petition for prolongation of the term of Letters Patent granted to Hornby, in 1839, for improvements in machinery, was presented, and a day appointed for hearing. Objections were lodged against an extension. Afterwards the Petitioners abandoned their intention of proceeding with their application for a prolongation, and served the Objectors with notice of the abandonment. An objection being made to the payment of the Objectors' costs,

Mr. Hindmarch, for the Objectors,

Applied, on motion, for costs of the opposition occasioned by the petition. He cited Macintosh's Patent (b), and Statute, 3rd & 4th Will. IV., c. 41, sec. 15.

* The same point being involved in this case as in the preceding, it is thought advisable to insert them together.

Present: The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Sir John Jervis), the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right Hon. Sir John Patteson.

(b) 1 Webs. Pat. Rep. 739, n.; and see "In re Bridson's Patent," ante, p. 499.

16th June, 1853.+

On a petition for prolongation of Letters Patent, a day

was fixed for hearing. Objections were lodged against

an extension. Before the hearing the Petitioners abandoned

the prosecu tion of the petition. In such circum

stances, costs of opposition allowed to Opposer.

1853.

IN RE HORNBY'S PATENT.

Their Lordships directed that the costs of the opposition should be taxed by the Registrar of the Privy Council, and paid by the Petitioners.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

2. Petition to dismiss an appeal from
the Sudder Court in India, and for
an order directing that Court to
carry into execution the terms of a
deed of compromise upon which
the withdrawal of the appeal was
founded, refused.

All this Court will do, in such cir-
cumstances, is to make an order of
dismissal, reserving to the parties,
leave to apply to the Court in
India to take further proceedings,
in pursuance of such agreement.
[Raja Sutti Churn Ghosal v. Sri
Mudden Kishore Indoo] 140
3. Appeal from an Order of the Su-
preme Court at Calcutta, suspend-
ing from office the Master and
Accountant General and Examiner
in Equity of that Court, upon spe-

[ocr errors]

141

cial application, allowed. [In re
Grant]
4. Appeal allowed from Orders made

by the Judges at Sierra Leone,
striking a practitioner of the Courts
of that Colony off the Rolls of Proc-
tors of the Vice-Admiralty Court,
and also off the rolls as attorney of
the Court at Freetown, upon terms,
that the Petitioner gave notice of
the allowance of such appeal to the
Judges, with liberty to the Peti-
tioner to set down his case ex parte,
at the expiration of six months
after notice served. [Smith v.
The Justices of Sierra Leone] 174
5. Under the Statute, 7th & 8th Vict.,
c. 69, an appeal allowed direct from
the Assize Court, at Kingston, in
Jamaica, to the Queen in Council,
without an intermediate appeal to
the Court of Error in the Island.
[Hitchins v. Hollingsworth] 228
6. In a salvage cause, the Supreme

Court, by its sentence pronounced
in March, 1849, dismissed the
claim of the salvors. In the month
of April following, the Promovents
moved for a rule nisi, to show
cause why the Defendants should
not pay their costs. This rule the
Court refused. In August, in the
same year, the Promovents applied
for and the Supreme Court granted
leave to appeal to England from
the principal sentence of March,
1849. No objection was taken
to the competency of the appeal
in Bombay by the Respondents,
nor was any protest against the
right of appeal entered in Eng-

« AnteriorContinua »