BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

O.S. (Civil) No. 007/2018

IN THE MATTER OF

1. JELLY BELLY INC.

2. JELLY BELLY INDIA LIMITED PLAINTIFFS

v.

1. FRISKY INDUSTRIES
2. TUNTUN CHEESE PRODUCTS DEFENDANTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………..3

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………………………4

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………5

Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………………………...6

Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………………………….7

Summary of Arguments………………………………………………………………………..8

Arguments Advanced……………………………………………………………..………….10

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………………...18

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

AIR All India Reporter
BomCR Bombay High Court Reports
Comm Commercial Division
CS Case
Del Delhi High Court
F.2d Federal Reporter, Second Series
FI Frisky Industries
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
IPAB Intellectual Property Appellate Board
JBIL Jelly Belly India Limited
JB Inc Jelly Belly Incorporated
M/S Messrs
No. Number
O.S. Original Suit
PTC Patent and Trademark Cases
RCR Revenue Cases Reports
Rs. Rupees
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reports
TTCP TUNTUN Cheese Products
v. Versus

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3. The Patents Act, 1970
4. Trademarks Act, 1999

CASES REFERRED

1. Biswanath Prasad Radhe Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (AIR 1982 SC 1444)
2. National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Brothers Ltd. (AIR 1953 SC 357)
3. Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation (11 287 F.2d 492 (1961))
4. Kores India Ltd. v. M/S Koday Eshwarsa and Son (1985 (1) BomCR 423)
5. Bharat Bhogilal Patel vs. M/S Leitz Tooling Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (59) PTC 130
(Del))
6. Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (1993 SCR (3) 61)
7. Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action Buildwell (CS (Comm) 1683/2016, Delhi HC)
8. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, 2014 ((60) PTC 277 (Del))
9. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. vs. Monsanto Technology LLC 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 501

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Constitution of India, V.N. Shukla, EBC, 8th Edition

2. Civil Procedure Code, Takwani, C.K. Eastern Book Co., 2010
3. Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights, V K Ahuja. Lexis Nexis, 2015
4. Patent Law Cases and Materials: A Synthesis For India, Adarsh Ramanujan, Wolters
Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd., 2020
5. Intellectual Property Law, P. Narayanan, Eastern Law House, 2018

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. LexisNexis [www.lexisnexis.com]
2. Manupatra [www.manupatra.com]
3. SCC Online [www.scconline.co.in]

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PRESENT SUIT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE HIGH COURT OF

KARNATAKA UNDER SECTION 104 OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970. THE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA IS COMPETENT TO ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT MATTER
CLAIMING ISSUES OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
AND RELATED CLAIMS.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

• Jelly Belly Inc. (hereinafter "JB Inc."), a manufacturer of separators crucial for drug
manufacturing and milk chilling plants, operates from Switzerland with a subsidiary, Jelly
Belly India Limited (JBIL), in Bangalore. JB Inc. holds Patent No. 422231 for its separator
apparatus, protected across several countries including India, USA, and others. The
patented separator, trademarked as "VEEKO," efficiently separates contaminants from
solid and liquid food and drug products.
• Frisky Industries (FI), established in Bangalore in 1999, manufactures cheap separators for
milk chilling plants and drug manufacturers in India. Facing high demand for separators,
FI sought a manufacturing license for VEEKO from JB Inc. in 2009, which was declined.
Despite JB Inc. supplying only 2 lakh units at approximately Rs. 24 lakhs each, FI produced
similar separators at a significantly lower cost of Rs. 10,00,000 each.
• In May 2016, during an installation visit to TUNTUN Cheese Products (TTCP) in Mumbai,
JBIL discovered two separators branded "VICO" installed by FI, which were exact copies
of VEEKO. This infringement was further compounded by the deceptive similarity in
naming between "VICO" and "VEEKO."
• JBIL engaged Mr. Chintamani as an investigator to confirm the source and extent of FI's
infringement. His investigation, including covert observations and interviews at FI,
conclusively established patent and trademark infringement by FI. Subsequently, JB Inc.
issued a Cease and Desist notice to FI and TTCP.
• FI and TTCP retaliated by initiating Groundless Threat Proceedings under Section 106 of
the Patent Act at the Bombay High Court, resulting in an order restraining JB Inc. from
issuing further groundless threats and mandating prior notice before any infringement suit
filing. FI also pursued revocation of JB Inc.'s patent at the IPAB and sought compulsory
licensing under Section 84 of the Patent Act.
• In response to the legal challenges, JB Inc. filed Suit No. 007/2018 before the Bangalore
District Court, subsequently transferred to the Karnataka High Court. The suit alleged
patent and trademark infringement, supported by JBIL, against FI.
• FI countered with claims seeking patent invalidation and transfer of the suit to the High
Court under Section 104 of the Patent Act.

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY JB INC. AGAINST FI UNDER THE PATENTS ACT
AND THE TRADEMARKS ACT IS MAINTAINABLE.

2. WHETHER THE ACT OF FI IN MANUFACTURING AND SELLING SEPARATORS

SIMILAR TO THE PATENTED SEPARATORS OF JB INC. AMOUNTS TO
INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT RIGHTS OF JB INC.

3. WHETHER THE USE OF THE MARK VICO BY FI ON ITS SEPARATORS IS

DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO THE REGISTERED MARK OF JB INC. I.E., VEEKO
USED IN RESPECT OF ITS SEPARATORS.

4. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD IN

RESTRAINING JB INC. FROM ISSUING GROUNDLESS THREATS IS JUSTIFIED.

5. WHETHER THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THE
REVOCATION OF PATENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IPAB ARE
MAINTAINABLE

6. WHETHER THE CLAIM OF FI FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING FROM JB INC. IS

JUSTIFIED; AND WHETHER THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS IS JUSTIFIED IN
HEARING AND DECIDING SUCH A CLAIM WHEN THE HIGH COURT IS SEIZED
OF THE INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM ISSUES AND IPAB IS SEIZED
WITH REVOCATION ISSUES.

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY JB INC. AGAINST FI UNDER THE PATENTS

ACT AND THE TRADEMARKS ACT IS MAINTAINABLE.

The present suit is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Court as presented in Issues 2 and
3 which focuses on the lack of novelty and inventiveness in the product patented by JB
Inc., as required by the Patents Act of 1970, reiterated through Supreme Court judgments.
JB Inc.’s claim for infringement of trademark is also not maintainable as it disregards the
Doctrine of Honest Concurrent Use under the Trademarks Act of 1999.

2. WHETHER THE ACT OF FI IN MANUFACTURING AND SELLING

SEPARATORS SIMILAR TO THE PATENTED SEPARATORS OF JB INC.
AMOUNTS TO INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT RIGHTS OF JB INC.

The act of FI manufacturing and selling separators does not infringe JB Inc’s patent. The
patent for the separator apparatus itself is invalid as it is just an aggregation of known
components that also function independently of one another showing that it lacks
inventiveness.

3. WHETHER THE USE OF THE MARK VICO BY FI ON ITS SEPARATORS IS

DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO THE REGISTERED MARK OF JB INC. I.E.,
VEEKO USED IN RESPECT OF ITS SEPARATORS.

FI's use of "VICO" on its separators is not deceptively similar to JB Inc.'s "VEEKO." Under
the Doctrine of Honest Concurrent Use, both trademarks have coexisted without consumer
confusion. FI's long-standing use in good faith and distinct marketing makes the trademark
infringement claims ineffective.

8
4. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN
RESTRAINING JB INC. FROM ISSUING GROUNDLESS THREATS IS
JUSTIFIED.

The Bombay High Court's order restraining JB Inc. from issuing groundless threats is
justified. The court found JB Inc.'s claims lacked legal backing and adhered to the principle
of 'stare decisis,' ensuring consistency in judicial decisions. The order aligns with
established legal precedents and principles.

5. WHETHER THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND
THE REVOCATION OF PATENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IPAB ARE
MAINTAINABLE

The counter claim filed before the High Court and the revocation of patent proceedings
before the IPAB are maintainable. The IPAB is the appropriate body to conduct
proceedings for the revocation of a patent as provided in the Patents Act, 1970. The Act
also provides that it is the High Court that has jurisdiction to decide a counter claim for
revocation of the patent made by the defendant.

6. WHETHER THE CLAIM OF FI FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING FROM JB

INC. IS JUSTIFIED; AND WHETHER THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS IS
JUSTIFIED IN HEARING AND DECIDING SUCH A CLAIM WHEN THE HIGH
COURT IS SEIZED OF THE INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM ISSUES
AND IPAB IS SEIZED WITH REVOCATION ISSUES.

The claim of FI for compulsory licensing from JB Inc. is justified as JB Inc. fails to meet
the reasonable requirements of the public, the patented invention is not available to the
public at a reasonably affordable price, and the patented invention is not worked in the
territory of India. The Controller of Patents is the appropriate authority to hear the claim
for compulsory licensing as provided under the Patents Act, 1970.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY JB INC. AGAINST FI UNDER THE PATENTS

ACT AND THE TRADEMARKS ACT IS MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the present suit is not maintainable
before the Hon’ble Court for reasons as follows. The patent held by JB Inc. for the separator
does not meet the requirements of Sections 2(1)(j)1 and 2(1)(ja)2 of the Patents Act, 1970
which focuses on the lack of novelty and inventiveness in the product patented by JB Inc.

Issues 2 and 3 also deal with the crux of the matter in further detail.

Furthermore, JB Inc.’s claim for infringement of trademark is also not maintainable as it

does not give regard to the Doctrine of Honest Concurrent Use under Section 12 of the
Trademarks Act, 19993.

2. WHETHER THE ACT OF FI IN MANUFACTURING AND SELLING

SEPARATORS SIMILAR TO THE PATENTED SEPARATORS OF JB INC.
AMOUNTS TO INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT RIGHTS OF JB INC.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act of FI manufacturing and
selling separators do not infringe any of the rights of JB Inc’s. This is because the patent
for the separator apparatus itself is invalid according to Section 3(p) of the Patents Act,
19704. One of the relevant claims in the patent filed by JB Inc. for their product is as below:

“A separator apparatus for the separation of contaminants from solid

and liquid food and drug products comprising of:

1
“"invention" means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application”
2
“"inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing
knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled
in the art”
3
“Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc. — In the case of honest concurrent use or of other
special circumstances which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to do, he may permit the
registration by more than one proprietor of the trade marks which are identical or similar (whether any such
trade mark is already registered or not) in respect of the same or similar goods or services, subject to such
conditions and limitations, if any, as the Registrar may think fit to impose.”
4
“What are not inventions an inventions. —an invention which in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an
aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known component or components.”

10
 a plastic stand holding a glass funnel possessing a first and second ends;

a mesh dish placed at the mouth of the said funnel along with a

strainer dish placed at the top of the funnel near its said first end and

a collection vessel situated further at the bottom of the funnel shank

carrying the inbuilt fluid regulator near the said second end within the

plastic stand..”5

This clearly shows that the apparatus, as mentioned above, is just an aggregation of known
components that also function independently of one another, proving that it lacks
inventiveness.

In Biswanath Prasad Radhe Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries6, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dealt with a similar case wherein the respondent firm claimed to have invented a
device for manufacturing utensils with better speed and convenience. The appellant in this
case was a person who sold similar goods for generations together, using prior knowledge
on the same. The Court in this case analysed the product composition and held that the
mere addition or subtraction of existing methods and restructuring them, did not constitute
to be an invention under the ambit of the Patents Act, and that such a ‘workshop
improvement’ must meet the test of inventiveness or an inventive step.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the patent granted to JB
Inc. was void ab initio for not meeting the guidelines laid down under the Patents Act of
1970, and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned
case.

5
Moot Proposition, Paragraph 2
6
AIR 1982 SC 1444

11
3. WHETHER THE USE OF THE MARK VICO BY FI ON ITS SEPARATORS IS
DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO THE REGISTERED MARK OF JB INC. I.E.,
VEEKO USED IN RESPECT OF ITS SEPARATORS.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the use of the mark “VICO” by FI on
its separators is not deceptively similar to JB Inc.'s "VEEKO”.

The Doctrine of Honest Concurrent Use under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act, 19977
applies in the present matter. This Doctrine allows both trademarks, registered or
unregistered, that have existed for an extended period of time while honestly utilizing the
same to coexist as the consumers have not been deceived or caused to be confused based
on the marks and the companies using them.

In the case of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Brothers Ltd.8, it
was the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the alleged deceptively similar
trademark must be present to cause confusion or deceive the public. The court also referred
to the criterion laid down in the United States Court of Appeal’s case of Polaroid
Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation9, wherein the criteria was as follows:
• Strength of the mark,
• Degree of proximity of products and marks,
• The likelihood that the consumer will be confused,
• The defendant’s good faith in adoption of the mark,
• The open propagation of the mark in the public eye, and
• The sophistication of the buyers.

7
“Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc. — In the case of honest concurrent use or of other
special circumstances which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to do, he may permit the
registration by more than one proprietor of the trade marks which are identical or similar (whether any such
trade mark is already registered or not) in respect of the same or similar goods or services, subject to such
conditions and limitations, if any, as the Registrar may think fit to impose.”
8
AIR 1953 SC 357
9
11 287 F.2d 492 (1961)

12
 Further, in Kores India Ltd. v. M/S Koday Eshwarsa and Son10, the Court highlighted the
requirements to prove concurrent use under Section 12(3) of the Trade and Merchandise
Marks Act, 195811, which included:
• Proof of the mark's term of usage if it is already in use.
• Proof of the advertisements of the mark and documentation of the money used for
the advertisements.
• Additionally, books of accounts displaying the annual sales data for the goods and
services provided under the mark may be submitted by the applicant.

In the present matter, while there is a similarity in product and the way the trademarks
sound, there is no bad faith involved. The defendant company has been involved in creating
separators and other milk industry related apparatus ever since the year 1999 and has
successfully created a low-cost separator model which provides accessible equipment to
industries.

The fact that JB Inc. did not even find the defendant company’s product in the market is an
indicator of the lack of any marketing or other promotion to deceive the average consumer
with respect to similarity in the products. Both “VICO” and “VEEKO” has coexisted
throughout a period of time wherein JB Inc. did not face any cuts or significant losses for
them to investigate the matter until they actually found a separator unit in one of FI’s
customer plants.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there is honest concurrent use, and that there is no
deceptive practices undertaken by the use of the name “VICO” by Frisky Industries in the
present matter.

10
1985 (1) BomCR 423
11
“Prohibition of registration of identical or deceptively similar trade marks.”

13
4. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN
RESTRAINING JB INC. FROM ISSUING GROUNDLESS THREATS IS
JUSTIFIED.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the order passed by the Bombay High
Court is perfectly valid and legally sound because the Court had analysed the various claims
of JB Inc. which they could not be substantiate with proper backing of the law, as under
Section 106 of the Patents Act, 197012.

In the case of Bharat Bhogilal Patel vs. M/S Leitz Tooling Systems India Pvt. Ltd.13, the
Delhi High Court had also restrained the patentee from making groundless threats without
substantive proof.

Further, it is humbly submitted that the issue of whether an order of the Bombay High Court
is justified falls outside the ambit of the jurisdictional power granted to the Hon’ble High
Court, both under the Patent and Trademarks Acts, as well as the suo moto powers granted
under the CPC or the Constitution.

The principle of 'stare decisis' (to stand by decided cases) is as old as the establishment of
the courts. It is derived from the legal maxim 'stare decisis et non quieta movere'. It is best
to adhere to decisions and not to disturb questions which have been put at rest. When a
point of law has been settled, it forms a precedent which is not to be ordinarily departed
afterwards. When the same point comes for consideration again in litigation, the scales of
justice must be kept even and steady. In the case of Hari Singh v. State of Haryana14, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had well established that courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction should
have consistent opinion with respect to similar set of facts and circumstances or questions
of law.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the
matter is justified and needs no intervention by this Hon’ble Court.

12
“Power of court to grant relief in cases of groundless threats of infringement proceedings”
13
2014 (59) PTC 130 (Del)
14
1993 SCR (3) 61

14
5. WHETHER THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND
THE REVOCATION OF PATENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IPAB ARE
MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court while the proceedings before the IPAB
and the High Court may be sub-judice, the chain of events must be considered in order to
provide an effective remedy to the current situation. It is humbly that the situation at present
arises out of the suit being filed by the plaintiff in the matter herein. It is humbly submitted
that the counter claim filed before the High Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act,
197015 and the revocation of patent proceedings before the IPAB under Section 6416 of the
same Act are maintainable.

The Delhi High Court in the case of Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action Buildwell17, had
considered a few conditions to practically resolve the same issue. The court in that instance,
after considering the revocation proceedings and counter claim, determined that either
forum could take up the matter of whether the counter claims for the purpose of revocation
were valid or not. The parties were consulted, and it was analysed that the IPAB and its
powers had become infructuous due to the patent having expired, and that the High Court
was the appropriate forum to determine the matter.

In the present case however, it is humbly submitted that the time period has not been
exhausted and that the IPAB can effectively determine the validity and claims of the
defendants in terms of the patent being filed by JB Inc. Further, the IPAB also would have
the power to remove such patents from the registry and decide the matter on technical
grounds in a much better capacity.

Meanwhile, it is humbly prayed that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is stayed due to
the revocation proceedings pending before the IPAB. It would be expedient in the interest
of justice, and in the interest of the court’s precious time to consider this matter once the
IPAB has concluded its proceedings.

15
“Jurisdiction.— “…Provided that where a counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the
defendant, the suit, along with the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision”
16
“Revocation of patents”
17
CS (Comm) 1683/2016, Delhi HC

15
6. WHETHER THE CLAIM OF FI FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING FROM JB
INC. IS JUSTIFIED; AND WHETHER THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS IS
JUSTIFIED IN HEARING AND DECIDING SUCH A CLAIM WHEN THE HIGH
COURT IS SEIZED OF THE INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM ISSUES
AND IPAB IS SEIZED WITH REVOCATION ISSUES.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that while the claim of revocation is
pending before the IPAB, and the counterclaim issues are pending before this Hon’ble
Court, it is imperative that the Controller of Patents be allowed to hear a matter pertaining
to compulsory licensing as provided under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 197018.

The defendant had approached the IPAB with an application for compulsory license in
consideration of public interest, as well as market volatility. While there is huge demand
for milk separators in the industry, the patent holder i.e, JB Inc., is unable to fulfil such
needs of the market. Milk and related commodities form an important part of the dietary
system in India, which in turn keeps the nation healthy. In the case of Bayer Corporation
v. Union of India, 201419, the court upheld the grant of a compulsory license to ensure
public access to life-saving medication.

Furthermore, the aspect of compulsory licensing is definitely valid due to multiple reasons
as given under Section 84 of the Act which are as follows,

• That the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented product
have not been satisfied as there is a requirement of 20 lakh units, while only 2 lakh
units have been supplied.
• That the patented product is not available to the public at a reasonable and
affordable price thereby limiting the access to the quality drugs and milk product to
general public affecting their health. The patented product is being sold at
approximately Rs. 24,00,000/- whereas the plaintiff can bring down the price to Rs.
10,00,000/- per product.
• That the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India since the product
is exclusively imported from Switzerland.

18
“Compulsory licenses”
19
(60) PTC 277 (Del)

16
 The case of Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. vs. Monsanto Technology LLC20 2018 (2) RCR
(Civil) 501 shows how the Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of working
the patent within India.

FI had also approached JB Inc., requesting a voluntary license prior to the present legal battles
and were denied the same without the mention of any reason. Such act of denial also calls for
mandatory and compulsory licensing to be undertaken by JB Inc. for their patented product.

Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the compulsory licensing claims before the IPAB are valid
during the pendency of other suits and hearings before various forums due to the aspect of
public interest being involved.

20
2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 501

17
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

1. Adjudge the suit filed by JB Inc. against FI under the Patents Act, 1970 and Trademarks
Act, 1999 is not maintainable, or
2. Adjudge that there is no infringement by FI in manufacture and sale of separators, and
3. Adjudge that the use of the mark “VICO” by FI is not deceptively similar to the mark
“VEEKO” used by JB Inc., and
4. Adjudge that the order passed by Bombay High Court is outside the ambit of challenge
before this court, and
5. Stay the proceedings before the High Court, until the IPAB decides on the revocation of
patent, and
6. Adjudge that the claim of compulsory licensing is justified pending other proceedings
before the IPAB and the High Court.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Defendants as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

18