The Express.
London, England, 1855-06-27 00:00:00

tau Intentgence,

EQUITY COURTB.—Jus6 28.
BOMB 1111111 Of TIM ROLLO.
110115 hauttOltr
Ws Noway gave judge's' in this ease Ca taklag
his
seat this suersisg.
The quietism was whether ePeutees seder •will ear
gated ht 18111 vas Gadded to the 'indisposed portion of resi-
duary estate ef their testator absolutely fir their emu re. It
appeared that by his will the testator gave the wives of his
executors • legacy of 201. swab. sad It bad bees urged that
these bequests precluded the isecutore frogs delude' the
residue. Not loog dace bird Bt. Leonardo had introduced
as Act ntathig the exseston in such eases thenceforth
merely trustees for the next of Wu.
His Hoes= held that 'Miff the law as it formerly stood
the executors were entitled, ad that bepsete to their
wives did not alter their rights.
Decree accordingly.

11/011 TKIKMANCIIiteII SIR I. MAW.
30003 O. 3OIITLIDOZ.
This was a salt by Mr. David Bogue, the publisher.
Fleet-street, the object of which was to rostrata tho 6-1
fondants, Messrs. George Routledge and Co., the palffidineel.l
of Furingden-street, their agents, and servaaes, ms
priatiag, publishing, selling, exposing for sale, or lire, or
otherwise disposing of any further or other copies or copy of
" Every Boy's Book," or any other book, work, publication,
or thing, containing aay passage, article, sentence, print,
wood-cut, Illustration, matter, or thing, taken, copied,
imitated, or cdourobly alters.), from any passage, article,
sentence, print, woodcut, illustration, matter, or thing,
contained is " The Boy's Own Book," whereon copyright
subsists and beings to the plaintiff.
Mr. Craig and Mr. Reilly now appeared in support of a
motion, asking the court to restrain the defendants in the
terms above expressed. They alleged that the plaintiff was
entitled to the injunction, on the ground that the scheme, and
colour, and title, and general external appearance of the de-
fendant.' work, "Every Boy's Book," were ne.rlv identical
with those particulars which characterised "The Boy's
Own Book ;" and that several of the articles in "Every
Boy's Book" were copied, with colourable variations only,
from "The Boy's Own Book." It appeared that the
plaintiff's book had pasted through twenty *dittos'', and
that 80,000 copies had been published, and that it was a
very valuable publication. 8 I passages in each book
were compared, which tho plaintiff submitted proved the
serair use of the plaintiff's book by the defendants.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Schomberg appeared for the de-
fendants.
On the defendant'ebebalf the manuscript of the defendant's
book was produced to court. The affidavits of the author
or compiler of, and t.f several contributors to the defendant's
book, both literary and illustrative, were read, in which the
detail' of the mode of getting up the work, and the sources
from which the information was obtained, were shown, and
it was stated that the getting up of the work had cost the
defendants upwards of 1,0001. It also appeared that seve-
ral books had been published with similar titles.
After a very long hearing, the Vice Chancellor thought
that the ease of the plaintiff was not so clear as to justify
the court in granting the injunction asked ; but he should,
acting in the same way and on the same principle as was
recognised in the case of " Spottiswoode v. Clarke" (2 Phil.)
direct the motion to stand over, with liberty to the plaintiff
to bring an action, giving the parties liberty to apply.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-Jula 26.

1117TITOI AT Pill FAITS IN LOADOS.-lIIPOTZ
AAA • COMMON STAT.

CAM JVIITICS 71

1110010 e. enrainedur.--euni.
The plaintiff in this ease is an actuary, and is also the
manager of the British Freehold Land Society; and the de-
fendant is an artist, residing at Hampstead. The action
was brought oa a bill of exchange for 601, drawn by one
Hawkins, accepted by the defendant, end endorsed to the
plaintiff, and the defence relied upon was, that the bill had
been gives to Hawkins to get discounted far Flanders ; that
instead of doing so he bad discounted it for his owe use, and
that theilaintiff had taken the bill with notice and without
having von value for it.
Mr. etersdorff appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Serjeant Byles and Mr. MN:samara for the defendant.
The plaintiff's case was that Hawkins, who is an ac-
countant in &spies-ins and had been joint secretary with
the plaintiff to the Licensed Victuallers' Bei ding Society,
applied to the plaintiff in March last to discount the bill.
At lint he was unwilling to do so, but was afterwards in-
duced to do it by Hawkins saying that he might deduct
71., which Hawkins had become indebted to him on account
of postage', &c., whilst he was joint secretary with him, and
might also deduct 31. for discount. Plaintiff acriord-
in gave him a cheque for 601., but Hawkins
having bees delayed on his way did not arrive
at the baskets' until too late to get it cashed: He
then west back to the plaintiff, and told him that fact, and
also that he wanted the money particularly that day, and
he
asked the plaintiff to give him cash for the cheque.
Plaintiff bad only 301., but be expected, in a short time, is
receive some rents for some parties, and he told Hawkins
to call again in an hour or two. When be did call plaintiff
gave him the 301. sad 201., which he took from the rent,
end received back the cheque, which he cancelled and kept.
In answer to some written interrogatories the plaintiff bad
' said that this 601. cheque had passed through his bankers,
but this mistake was now explained by the fact that he bad
given instructions for the preparation of his answers under
circumstances of hurry, and without having docu-
ments to refer to ; and that he bad, in fact,
paid another cheque into Dia banters for 631.,
on account of the parties for whom be had received the rent.
Hawkins in his evidence stated that he had received the bill
of the defeadent on account of commission, and also some
ezpenms which he would have to incur in raking 1,6001.
for the defendant upon mortgage of some freehold property
at Ihmoditch.
The defendant was called, and he stated that he had given
M 1111 to Hawkins to discount for witness's benefit, as It
mob, be some time before the 1,6001. could be raked.
flat as he could not get the money on the bill, an action
bad bees brought against Hawkins, who after having
Mr the action had withdrawn is pleas and suffered
t by default. Another fact relied on by the
t was the mil-statement by the plaintiff in his
aniernir to the iaterrogatories as to the 601. cheque, and it
was slatmlited that it was a suspicious circumstance that
tbatibegre ha been cancelled just in the same term as it
wed& bays boas if it had actually passed through the
beaks's. It was also ascertained that the cheques did not
ad with the torn part of the counterfoils, which the
said was missed by the fact of his always carrying
gal
cheques is his pocket, and when he bad filled them
up, sithaquently entering the amounts on counterfoils. It
was ales said that the plaintiff knew Hawkins well, and
had himself given a " cautious character" of him, when
referred to as to some offices, and from his long acquaintance
it was submitted that he probably knew the circumstances
under which Hawkins had obtained the bill.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant, one of the
jurymen saying that they were unanimously of opinion that
the bill had been gives to Hawkins to get discounted
for Flanders; and another, saying that their verdict was
" without prejudice to the plaintiff."