HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0156 and id is 1 raw text is: FEATHE. V. TI2E QUEEN
ill a case ill which no wl it of e;,r'o, could he brought, alod it is 1,hc1 efore not biulding on
us, although we would receive it with respect, andt not dissent from it without con-
sideration. But it is not uecessary to enter into that, for the facts are different from
the present. There a mail shot a bird in his neighbour's close alud then went to fetch
it. And as the justices had some doubt,, and the statute was a penal one, they did
not convict. The Court say, as I read the decision, that if the justices thought the
shooting the bird and the picking it up were all one and the same act, that it was the
pursuit of the game continued till consummated by picking up the bird, they might
have so inferred. It is not neces.sary to say that we would have done it-we are not
to be understood as either agreeing with or dissenting from their decision. But it is
consistent with the facts of the present case that the respondent was astonished when
he saw the pheasant fall into his neighbour's land, though when that occurred he
perhaps thought it better to go in and take it up. Although the justices ought to
consider all the facts of a ease, they are not bound to draw from them every inference
that might be drawun. In Osbond, Appt., Meadows, Resyt. (12 C. B. N. S. 10), the justices
drew the conclusion that the whole was part of the same transaction, which the Court
of Common Pleas said they might have drawn. But the question is, were the justices
here right in not drawing the inference7 Without saying if they had drawn the
opposite inference they would have been wrong, it is enough that the question they
ask us is, not about the pheasant having been hit while it was in the air over the neigh-
hour's [257] land, but whether the entering the land to pick up the dead pheasant
was a trespass within this statute. It was a trespass but not in pursuit of game, and
we cannot, as in Osbond, Appt., Meadows, Respt. (12 C. B. N. S. 10), infer that it was
all one act.
Mellor J. concurred.
Crompton J. bad gone to Chambers.
Decision affirmed.
FEATHER, Suppliant, against THE QUEEN. Friday, February 3rd, 1865.-Letters
patent for invention. Defence of the country. Petition of right. Action.-
1. Letters patent, in the usual form, for an invention, whereby, on the prayer of
the patentee, the Crown of its special grace, certain knowledge,- and mere
motion, grants to him special licence, full power, sole privilege and authority
to make, use, exercise and vend the invention, and enjoy the whole profit,
benefit, commodity and advantage from time to time coming, growing, accruing,
and arising by reason of the said invention, and prohibits all and every person
and persons, bodies politic and corporate, and all other our subjects whatsoever,
of what estate, quality, degree, name or condition soever, directly or indirectly,
from making, using or practising the same without the consent, licence or agree-
ment of the patentee, with the condition that the patentee should supply articles
of the invention for the use of the Crown, at and upon such reasonable prices and
terms as should be settled by the officers of the Crown requiring them ; and that
the letters patent should be taken, construed and adjudged in the most favour-
able and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the patentee, do not preclude
the Crown from the use of the invention protected by the patent, even without
the assent of or compensation made to the patentee.-2. Supposing the law were
otherwise, the remedy of the patentee would not be by petition of right, but by
action against the officer of the Crown using the invention probected by the
patent.
[S. C. 35 L. J. Q. B. 200; 12 L. T. 114. Applied, Thomas v. R., 1874, L. R. 10 Q. B.
43. Limited, Dixon v. London Small Arms Company, 1876, 1 App. Cas. 632. Dis-
cussed, loden v. London Small Arms Company, 1876, 46 L. J. Q. B. 217. Approved,
Windsor and Annapolis Railway v. R., 1886, 11 App. Cas. 607. Referred to, Income
Tax Commissioners v. Pemsel, (1891] A. C. 546. Goldsmiths' Company v. Wyatt,
[1907] 1 K, B. 107.]
Petition of right, alleging that the suppliant was the first and true inventor of a
certain new manufacture, namely of Improvements in the construction [258] of ships,
and in rendering ships and boats impervious to shot; that by letters patent of the
1191
6 B. & S. 257.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0156&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)