The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-01-21 00:00:00

"HARVEY SAUCE."

Court

In the Caurt of Chancery (before the Lords Justices of
Appeal), the cause of "L .zonby v. White' has been heard.
The object of this suit, which was instituted by
Mr. Lazenby, of 6, Edward-street, Portman-square,
well known as the manufacturer of Elizabeth Lazsnby's
Harvey Sauce, was to restrain the defendant from
selling Harvey Sauce in bottles with labels of such a
character SS to lead the public to believe that it Was
sauce of the plaintiff's manufacture, or that it waa the
original Lazenby's Harvey Sallee. The defendant
carries on business in the neighbourhood of Covent-
garden, under the firm of Marshall arid Son. his pre-
deceseore in the business having been Messrs. Marshall
and Son. The original inventor of the Harvey Sauce
Was one Harvey, who, towards the end of the last con.
tury, kept the " Black Dog" Inn at Bedfont. He gave
the receipt for the manufacture to Elizabeth Lazenby,
who was the grandmother of the plaintiff, and who
carries on ncov in succession to her the business
which she carried on in her lifetime. The defendant
alleged that he had purchased the receipt from which
he made his sauce from one Charles Lazenby, who was
aleo a grandson of Elizabeth Lazenby, and who was
formerly in the defendania employ. The appearance
of the labels on the defendant's bottles WAS very
similar to that of those used on the bottles of the
plaintiff, though in the one case they were signed
"Charles Lazenby," and in the other "Elizabeth
Lazenby." The plaintiff's bottles, however, had on
the neck a red and green label, which was wanting on
the defendant's bottles. It appeared that in 1858 the
plaintiff in another suit obtained an injunction against
the defendant's predecessors, restraining them from
using labels resembling those of the plaintiff. Same
slight aleration was made. and the plaintiff took no
further active steps; to enforce the injunction. This,
the defendant insisted, amounted to acquiescence on
the part of the plaintiff, and entitled the defendant to
SWUM° that the plaintiff was satisfied with what had
I been done, and in this belief he said that he had pur-
chased the business of his predecessors, and he con-
tended that he was justified in believing that the plain.
, tiff would not interfere with him. The Mister of the
I Rolls having granted an injunction, the defenclaiat
appealed.
Sir R. Baggallay. QC., and Mr. Homersham Cox
were for the defendant; Mr. Jessel, Q.C., and Mr.
Lindley were for the plaintiff, but were not called on.
Lord Justice James said it might be assumed that
the name "Harvey Sauce" was not a trade mark, but
that it was open to any one to use that name. Any
person, therefore, whose name was Lazenby might
manufacture and sell "Harvey Sauce," and might call
it "Laz-mby's Harvey Sauce." The decision of the
Master of Rolls was that the defendant had no right
to represent this sauce as being that of the plaintiff,
nor as the original "Lszenby'a Harvey Sauce," inas-
much as the plaintiff alone was entitled to represent
himself as the eucceesor to Elizabeth Lazenby, or
as the proprietor of tip. original " Lazenby's Harvey
Sauce." The defendant admitted that he had used
a label which the Court had had considerable
difficulty in distinguishing from the label which was
forbidden by the decree in the former suit. The de.
fendant's case, however, was that there had been
acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff—that, in fact,
he was misled by the acts of the plaintiff. This case
was not raised by the answer, and his Lordship was
satisfied that the defendant had not been misled at all.
On the contrary, he bought the business with full
notice that this wart a most fraudulent imitation of
another man's trade mark. The defendant had con-
tinued the use which he must have known to be wrong,
and he was properly restrained by the Master of the
Rolls from so doing. There was nothing to prevent
the defendant from representing himself as the pro.
prietor of a II arvey Sauce manufactured from a receipt
communicated to him by a Charles Lazenby, who was
a grandson of Elizabeth Lazenby, but he must do
nothing to represent himself as proprietor of the
plaintiff's sauce. The appeal must be dismissed with
coats.
Lord Justice Mellish was of the same opinion.

BENEVOLENT NECTRALITY.—Both the GETITIEEE
and the French keep abusing us for observing neutrality
between them. We incur this invective by helping
neither one side nor the other. Possibly we might
avoid it by giving help to both, and assisting the
Germans with a Fleet, and the French with an Army.
—Punch,

"PRODGERS v. PRODGERS."
In the Court of Probate and Divorce, on Tuesday, the
above case was brought forward, and was as follow'
In this early part of last year Mrs. Giacommetti, side
Pr cl;ers, sei abli,he3, order a recent Act of Parlia-
ment, that her children wire legitimats, and she took
those steps because, it was allei,ed, her husband had
often sail they were iregitimate, in core, quence a his
being a Catholic and she a Protestant !alba Prodgers
was the daugh er of a clergyman in Hertfordshire, and
Mr. Giacommetti was an Austrian, and at one time
in the merchant service of that country. They met
each other accidentally in London, and, after a very
short courtship, they were married, the lay's
brother officiating at the ceremony. Differences took
place whilst on the marriage tour, and Mr. Giacom-
metti state i a short time since, when he sought for
a restitution of conjugal rights, that she had refused
to continue to live with him, arid was now living in a
separate residence at Pelham. His wife's relatives be-
lieved that she was solely in the wrong, and had
allowed Mr. Giacommetti £2OO a year; but as his wife
had £30,003 in the Funds alone, it was asked that
she should continue to live with her husband. The
at that time ordered that Mrs. Giacommetti
should resume cohabitation in a fortnight, and it was
now stated that she had not complied with the order.
She had gone to bis resider:es, turned up her nose, and
then went away without leaving any message. It was
also atatel that the lady had said that, if her husband,
came to her residence, she should leave.
His Lordship said that if the Court was not satisfied
within a week that she bad complied with the order, an
attachment would issue in respect of her property.
Mrs. Giacommetti was in Court, but did not offer
art explanation as to her conduct, and immediately left
after Lord Per z ince had given his decision.