The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-12 00:00:00

Before the Master or the Rolle.

-.-
BELLAMY V. 8111-LA MT.-PAYMENT INTO COCRT.-Mr.
Toiler applied on behalf of a purchaser to pay his purchase
money into court. It appeared that the decree had directed
the testator's real estates to be sold by the defendants, the
trustees of his will, who were directed to pay off certain in-
cumbrances on the estates, and to pay the residue of the pur-
chase money into court. A question was made by the pur-
chaser of part of the estates as to the parties entitled to a
legacy of 2,0001. charged thereon, and, in consequence, he
was desirous of having his purchase money paid into court.—
The Master of the Roll thought, that having regard to the
terms of the decree, this could not be done without an affi-
davit explaining the circumstances.
MANNERS V. Ft:REL.-RECEIVER'S RECOONIRANCES.-
Mr. ebandless applied for the sanction of the court to the
acceptance of the British Guarantee Association as a surety
for the receiver appointed in this cause. The association being
a corporation aggregate could not enter into the usual recog-
nisanees, but it was proposed to take its bond.—The Master
of the Rolls said the parties might consent amongst them.
selves to require no recognisance, but it was another thing to
ask the sanction of the court to • deviation from the ordinary
practice. lie would consider of it.

Before the rhee-Chancellor of England.
THE LONDON AND PROVINCIAL LAW ASsUIti.NCE SO-
CIETY O. THE LONDON AND PROVINCIAL JOINT-STOCK
LIFE INSURANCE COMPAI4T.—INJENCTION TO RESTRAIN
TER DEFENDANTS CONTINUING THEIR NAME AND TITLE

REFUSED—This wan a motion on behalf of the London and
Provincial Law Assurance Society for an injunction
to restrain the London and Provincial Jointstock
Life Insurance Company from contipuing to use the
words " London and Provincial" as part of the
name, style, and title now adopted by them, on the ground
that the name had been adopted for the purpose of inducing
people to mistake the defendants'society for that of the plain-
tiffs, and thereby do the plaintiffs a serious injury. The
plaintiffs' company was registered in September, 1845 ; and
the defendants' company was not completely registered until
June, 1847. The plaintiffs had, consequently, hail the use
of their name long before the institution of the defendants'
company. The plaintiffs society was composed of persons of
the highest rank, amongst whom was Sir Fitzroy -Kelly, u
standing counsel. It was contended that as the defendants
had prefixed the words " Loudon and Proviacial" to their
title, which were the some words adopted by the plaintiffs,
the public would be misled, since the usual way of denoting
the plaintiffs' society was by merely calling it the " Londod
and Provincial Assurance Company. The first two words
were, in fact, the most prominent, and the same style would
be used in denoting the defendants' company, and
by that means the two would be confounded together.
The cases of " Perry r. Tnditt " (6 Heaven and Millington) •
and Fox (3 M. and Cr.) were cited as authorities in support
of this argument —Counsel for the defendants were not
called upon to address the court —The Vice-Chancellor said
this appeared to him a very simple cue. It was not an ap-
plication to restrain the use of an entire name, but only the
two Bret words. The question was, wpiether the title adopted
by the defendants was likely to mislead the public. It ap-
peared to his Honour that when persons intended to insure
in a society, they would make particular inquiries so to the
merits of the different companies, and they would find by
the word " law," which was adopted by the plaintiffs, that
the lawyers chiefly predominated in that society. The word
" law" wu not used at all by the,defendants.;lle did not thick
therefore that any mistake was likely to occur. As to any
particular:damage that might arise to the plaintiffs, he
thought this might be a fair question to be tried. He would
not grant the injunction, but would allow the motion to
stand over, and direct a trial at law in the usual way.
s tr
for T
an injunction
L g"
GUINNESS V. ULLN EIL AND WATTS.—INJUNCTION TO
RUT/LAIN TRIG RAKING OE PILLING or BLOCKS roll
TPuREINpTILANOINTBI
FB EL. SP4 Bethel) IN 'st rr N
movedo
restrain the defendants, who were carvers and engravers,
ItOY
from cutting, engraving, casting, or making, and from caus-
ing to be cut, engraved, cast, or made, and also from using
or permitting to be used, and from selling or otherwise gip-
posing of any blocks or plates for printing labels in imitation
of the labels furnished by Sparks Moline to, and used by.
the agents appointed by him for the sale of the plaintiffs'
stout, or differing only colourably therefrom, and also from
selling or disposing of any of such blocks or plates
as were now in their possetaion, to any person other
than the plaintiffs, or such persona as they should appoint.
It appeared from the affidavits that the platatiffs,who consti-
tuted the firm of Guinness and Co., stout brewers, of Dub-
lin. had appointed a person, named Spark. Moline to be
their agent in London. That the plaintiffs bad discovered
that persons had been in the habit of selling beer, which
they denominated Guinness's stout, with labels attached to
the bottles in imitation of those used by the plaintiffs. hey
had also discovered that the defendants had made ant sold