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/ssactsengr0216 and id is 1 raw text is: 5ROBINSON'S PATENT (IN RE) [1845]
pardon ought to have been verified and registered by the Royal Court before it was
executed,'-their Lordships are of opinion that the writ of pardon in the Petitions
mentioned did not require to have been verified and registered by the Royal Court
before it [65] was executed. In respect of the fourth question,-' That the Lieu-
tenant-Governor was not warranted in enforcing obedience to the said pardon by a
threat of military force,'-their Lordships are of opinion that it was the duty of the
Portier immediately to have discharged the prisoner, on the production to him of
the pardon under the sign manual; but the Portier, not being a servant of the
Lieutenant-Governor, for the purpose of the custody of the prisoner, their Lord-
ships are of opinion that the Lieutenant-Governor was not warranted in enforcing
obedience to the writ of pardon, by the threat of military or other force.
[Mews' Dig. tit. COLONY; II. PARTICULAR COLONIES; 13. Jersey and Guernsey, b.
S.C., with annotation, in 6 St. Tr. (N.S.) 159; and see Printed Cases for
petitions, cases, and statements in reply. As to the laws of Jersey and Guernsey,
generally, see notes to In the Matter of the States of Jersey, 1853, 8 St. Tr. (N.S.)
286; S.C. 9 Moo. P.C. 185; 1862, 15 Moo. P.C. 195; and cf. In re Belson,
1850, 7 Moo. P.C. 114; In re Jersey Juq'ats, 1866, L.R. 1 P.C. 94, 4 Moo. P.C.
(N.S.) 456; Lacloclhe v. Lache, 1870, L.R. 3 P.C. 125, 6 Moo. P.C. (N.S.)
383 ; L.R. 4 P.C. 325, 9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 87. Reports (i.) of 1846 on the Criminal
Laws of the Channel Islands; and (ii.) 1859, on the Civil Laws of Jersey. In
In re Daniel, 1891 (6 St. Tr. N.S. 159), the Privy Council held that in Jersey a
warrant of pardon did not need to be registered before being put into execution.
As to deportation of aliens, see note to Donegani v. Donegani, 1834-35, 3 Knapp
93.]
IN RE ROBINSON'S PATENT * [February 3, 1845].
The user of an invention in England prior to the late of Letters Patent granted
for Scotland, will invalidate the Scotch Patent.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under the 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83,
sec. 2, refused to confirm a Scotch Patent, the invention being used in England
before the date of the Scotch Patent.
This was an application, under the 5th and 6th Will. IV., c. 83, sec. 2, for the
confirmation of Letters Patent for Scotland, bearing date the 22nd of March 1833,
granted to John Robinson, for an invention called a Nipping Lever for causing the
rotation of wheels, shafts and cylinders under certain -circumstances. The
Petitioner was the assignee of the Patentee.
The Petition stated that since the date of the Letters Patent for Scotland, the
Petitioner had discovered that [66] some other persons had used the invention un-
known to the Petitioner, before the date of the Letters Patent for Scotland, and that
he was advised that the prior use of the invention in England would, in the event
of law proceedings, be considered a sufficient user for the purpose of invalidating
the Letters Patent for Scotland, and inasmuch as it was unknown to the Petitioner
that such prior use of the invention in England would in Scotland be considered as
any user at all, or any user within the meaning of the condition, in that respect,
in the Letters Patent for Scotland contained, and that John Robinson, before he
applied for the Letters Patent for Scotland, was informed and believed that the
law was universally supposed by Counsel in Westminster Hall, to be that no prior use
in England would invalidate a Scotch Patent granted for the invention, sub-
sequent to such prior use in England, but that the Petitioner was advised, that the
decision in the case of Brown v. Annandale (reported 8 Clk. and Fin. 437; and 1
Webster's Patent Cases, 433: and see Roebuck v. Stiling, 5 Brown's Sup. to
Morrison's Collection of Decisions in the Court of Session, 522; and 8 Clk. and Fin.
447, note), in the House of Lords, on the 25th of February 1842, and after the
granting of the Letters Patent for Scotland, was in fact a decision, against the
Present: Lord Langdale, Lord Campbell, The Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce,
the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh.
V MOORE, 65](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0216&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)