Re Nickels' Patent

£563] In re nickels' patent. Feb. 1, 15, 29, March 27, 30, May 31, June 5, 1841. [S. C. on appeal, 1 Ph. 36; 41 E. K. 544.] Jurisdiction and practice in correcting clerical errors in letters patent, the proceedings in obtaining them, and in the enrolment. The object of this petition was to correct a clerical error which had occurred in the proceedings in obtaining letters patent, and consisted in substituting the word ò" covering " for the word " recovering." In March 1838 Mr. Nickels petitioned the Queen for a patent for " improvements in machinery for covering fibres applicable in the manufacture of braid and other fabrics." In the petition, declaration, notice, and in the Solicitor-General's report, the word ò"covering" was properly stated ; but a clerk in the Secretary of State's Office introduced, by mistake, in the Queen's warrant the word " recvuering " instead of "covering," and this error was adopted in the subsequent proceedings, namely, in the Queen's Bill, the Signet Bill, the Privy Seal Bill, and in the enrolment, and also (as stated in the petition) in the letters patent themselves; the evidence, however, was ambiguous -as to the letters patent. In the specification the word " covering " was used. [664] The Queen's warrant had, by command of Her Majesty, been recently òcorrected, and the following memorandum had been written thereon :- "The word 'recovering' in the seventh line of this page was erased, and the word 4covering' in the same line was inserted in the presence of Her Majesty and by Her Majesty s command. "Whitehall, 23d January 1841. normanby." The Queen's Bill, into which also the same error had extended, had also been corrected, and the following memorandum made thereon :- " The word ' recovering' in the third line of this skin was erased, and the word 'covering' was inserted in the presence of Her Majesty and by Her Majesty's òcommand. "Whitehall, 23d January 1841. normanby." (1) 6 Mad. 31. And see Burrows v. Cottrell, 3 Sim. 375; Overend v. Gurnet/, 7 Sim. 137; The Earl of Shaftesburi/ v. The Duke of Marlbormigh, 7 Sim. 237; The Commissioners of Charitable Donations v. Gotten, 2 Dr. & War. 615; Martin v. Drinkwater, 2 Beavan, 215. R. n.-15* 458 in re nickels' patent beav. ks. The Queen's Bill was deposited with the proper officer at Her Majesty's Signet Office; and the signet transcript (the Signet Bill) thereof was deposited with Her Majesty's officer the Lord Privy Seal; but the Privy Seal Bill was, as uaual, in the custody of the Master of the Rolls. The petition prayed " that the proper officer from the Privy Seal Office might l e allowed to make the alteration, in accordance with the Queen's Bill, and that the exemplification or enrolment of the letters patent might be corrected according to the transcript of the Queen's Bill. The petition (which was signed by the Solicitor-General, as signifying his consent to it on behalf of the [565] Crown) came on, in the first instance, exparte; but the Master of the Soils, having been informed that the Petitioner had commenced an action at law against the London Caoutchouc Company, for the infringement of the patent, and that the London Caoutchouc Company were prosecuting a writ of scire facias for the repeal of the patent, directed that notice of the petition should be given to the London Caoutchouc Company, who were to have leave, if they thought fit, to shew cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. Feb. 15, 29. The petition again came on for hearing, when it appeared that the Petitioner had, in June 1840, filed a bill against the company, complaining of an infringement of his patent "for covering ;" and that a motion made in August 1840 for an injunction had been ordered to stand over, the Plaintiff being allowed in the meantime to bring his action at law. The Petitioner commenced such action in November 1840, which was still pending, and in January following he was served with a writ of scire facias at the suit of the company to repeal the letters patent. Mr. Tinney, Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Corrie, in support of the petition. the masteb of the rolls said he must hear the other party first, in the way of shewing cause against granting the prayer of the petition. Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Kindersley, and Mr. Hindmarch, for the company. When a party applies to the discretion of the Court for an indulgence, he must shew that he makes the application at the earliest moment, and he must state fairly and without reserve all the ma-[566]-terial facts connected with his case. If anything is kept back the Court will refuse to interfere. ò In this case the Petitioner has suppressed several material facts ; first, he has not, in any way, explained when the error in the letters patent, if any exists, was first discovered; the explanation, such as it is, applies only to the enrolment. Again, it does not appear whether the error has been corrected in the Signet Bill, or how the Queen's Bill was altered, and the Court is bound to satisfy itself that all the proceedings anterior to the enrolment have been properly corrected. Nothing is said by the affidavits as to the letters patent themselves, or whether they contain the error. There is something behind unexplained. We call upon the Petitioner to produce the letters patent, in order that it may be seen whether the error is...