The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-12 00:00:00

and as the question was of we much importance their lord-
ships would consider of their jedgment, and letcounsel know
if they required further information.
The quite= whether the Queen be entitled to the goods of
persons dying intestate within the county Palatine in right of
the crown or of the duchy, involves a great many difficult
points, which it would be impossible to make intelligible I
without going into them at great length. The right con- I
tended for is one of ecclesiastical origin; the church in
ancient times laying its hands upon the moveable property
of an intestate, for the purpose of applying it to " pious uses,"
the chief of which was his "soul's heath," that is, the saying
of masses. In other words, it was appropriated by the clergy.
Whether the crown, upon the creation of a county palatine,
had the power to convey this ecclesiastical privilege ; and
whether, if so, it did, in fact or in law, grant it in the case of
the county elatine of La-master, wire two of the ques-
tions argued. Was the " ordinary" ministerial offices
of the Bishop on such eeeSeiella to be considered as the
offices of the crown or of the county palatine ? Instances of
th, appointment of Bishops by the holders of a grant of a
palatinate jurisdiction (as Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester),
were shown ; but in other cases, they were appointel by the
crown; and before the Reformation the Pope, as the head of
the church, had the power of nominating, or approving of,
the persons to be elected bishops ; the crown afterwards as-
suming this privilege &jure, as well as exercising it de facro.
Before the Reformation, then, could the crown grant this ec-
clesiastical privilege to a county palatine; and if so, and ad-
mitting that the privilege had been granted to, and exercised
by, the holders of the grant, is it not one which, upon the
duchy reverting to the crown, would merge in and be pos-
sessed by the crown in its higher character of sovereign ?
These are questions involving a great deal of old law, and
depending on principles and authorities of a very abstruse
and technical nature. that they should arise at all in the
nineteenth century may, perhaps, be considered a great
credit to the intelligence of the age. The public can have
little or no interest in the decision one way or other ; the
" goods " of the intestate, in the present case, will be spent
in the litigation, and should it turn out that, upon the mi-
nute and technical considerations brought to bear upon the
case, such property is to go into her Majesty's private pocket,
as duchess of lAneaster,instead of to the general credit of the
crown, it will doubtless be broughtinto account in any fu-
ture settlement of the crown revenues; and in the mean
time, judging from the past, such windfalls are not likely to
be of vast amount.
CRAWFOIII) o. Seoorren.—This appeal from a decision of
the Supreme Court at Bombay, relating to the refusal of
the registrar of ships to register a vessel (the General Wood),
the property of Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, Bart., and Sons, of
Bombay, on the ground that it had for a time been the pro-
perty of a foreigner, was part heard, and adjourned to Tues-
day next. Mr. Serjt. Channell and Sir J. Bayley, fur appel-
lant ; Mr. Wigram and Mr. Forsyth, for respondent.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the lad Chancellor.
FINDEN v. STEPHENS AND OTHEBS.—WILL.—WORD
OF RECOMMENDATION TO AN OFFICE.—This appeal from
an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England, overruling a
demurrer to the bill, was argued last Wednesday, and a
report appeared in the Daily News of Thursday. The
question was whether the plaintiff could compel the defend-
ants to retain him as their sole agent in the management of
estates devised to them by a testator, who expressed it to be
his wish and desire that the plaintiff, in whose judgment and
integrity he had great confidence, should be appointed for
all purposes for which his trustees (the defendants) might
have occasion for an agent, receiver, or manager of any of
his estates and property.
The Lord Chancellor, now giving his judgment, said that
the great caution which he thought it his duty to exercise
when he found that he differed from another judge of the
court, required him to give much consideration to this case.
The result was to confirm him in the impression he had at
the hearing of the appeal. He considered the question
raised here to fall entirely within the principle of the
judgment of the House of Lords in the case of " Shaw
r. Lawless" (5 Clark & Finnelly). It was necessary to
consider the intention of the testator, as expressed by the
words he used. The words were wards of recommendation
only, and all the arguments and observation on like words
in Shaw r. Lawless," applied to this case. The devises in
both cases were similar. The testator here devised his estate's
to trustees, and gave them full power to sell and dispose of
them for the benefit of the persons beneficially entitled. It
was inconsistent with that power to fasten the plaintiff as
agent on the estates. In " Shaw v. Lawless," it was asked
whether the defendant (Lawless)should have aright to inter-
fere with the management of the property. The same ques-
tion might be asked in this cage. But it was useless to
pursue the comparison, for scarcely an observation is found
in " Shaw v. Lawless," that was not equally applicable here.
But there was in this case another circumstance : the plain-
tiff here claimed no interest in the property, but to be I
employed as agent, when an agent is necessary. The bill
could not be sustained on that ground ; and it was equally
untenable on the ground of the injunction prayed. The
demurrer, therefore, ought to have been allowed. The Vice-
Chancellor's decision was reversed.
SPOTTP,WOODB r. CLARK.—PICTOKIAL ALMANACX.I.—
I strrATION.—I NJ' UNCTION.—This was an appeal motion to
dissolve an injunction granted by the Viee-Chancellor of
England, to restrain the publication of the defendant's alma-
auk, on the ground that it was a fraudulent imitation of the
plaintiff's almanack.—Mr. Stuart, for the motion, said the
injunction was first granted ex parte, and continued, to his
surprise, by the Vice-Chancellor upon motion to discharge it
after the defendant's answer was put in. There were two
questions to be considered; first, whether the plaintiff had a
right to an injunction, without first establishing his legal
title; and, secondly, whether the defendant's publication
ought to be restrained at all, as it was clearly not an imita-
tion of the plaintiff's work. There was no great similitude
in the title of the works, and yet it was in the titles alone
that any imitation was imputed. The plaintiff's al-
manack was called " The Pictorial Alnianaek," and
the defendant entitled his " Old Moore's Family Pictorial
Almanuk." The plaintiff alleged that this title was an in.
fringement of his right, and a fraudulent imitation of his
work. Surely it was open to every person to publish an
almanack, and a pictorial almanack, which meant no more
than an almanack with pictures. Both these works had pie-
tures, but there was no resemblance charged, except in the
title-page. The two works were very different in size and
in the colour of the wrappers. The plaintiff' supposed no
one had a right to publish a pictorial almanack but himself.
But he had not shown that he had such exclusive right.
Both these almanacks had engravings, but there was no like.
nem between them no one could mistake the one for the
other. The plaintiff should show an exact imitation in order
to entitle him to the injunction. The defendant, by his
answer, denied any intention to imitate the plaintiff's publi-
cation. The engraving on the frontispiece was, in fact, taken
from an old magaxine. He submitted*at the injunction should
be dissolved, with liberty to the plaintif, if he wished, to
bring hie action at law to establish his right to come to this
court for protection.—Mr. Moore, on the same side, said, the
real ground of the plaintiffs applying for the injunction was,
that the defendant's publication was marked to be sold for
3d., but the plaintiff's had Sd. on the wrapper.—Mr. Ander-
don and Mr. Hallett supported the injunction. There was
here clearly a fraudulent imitation. There were twenty
words of the plaintiff's title-page transferred to the de-
fendant's, but ingeniously and fraudulently transposed, so
that if any person went into a shop and asked for the " Pie-
tesial Almanack," and was banded this almanack of the de-
fendant's, he would, by the title only, take it as the
plaintiff's almanack. Why should not the defendant
take some other title for his publication ? The prior
exclusive use of the title of the work gave the plaintiff a
right to an injunction. It was true that no one carefully
examining both works could mistake one for the other, but
people going to a shop did not always examine the work
until they purchased it. Several cases were referred to in
which parties were restrained from the use of trade marks on
their wares, as in" Croft v. Day " (7 Heaven), where a party
was restrained from selling blacking with the title " Day
sad Martin" on the corks, and "Millington v. Fox" (3 MyL
and C.), in which the defendants were restrained from selling
their steel with marks on it which had been long used by the
plaintiffs in their manufacture; and "Knott c. Morgan"
(2 Keen), where the London Conveyance Company obtained
an Injunction to restrain a new company from running
" omnibuses" with the name of " London Conveyance Com-
pany," or " Conveyance Company," painted on them. All
three cases went beyond the present cue.
The Lord Chancellor, without waiting for the reply, said
all these cases depended on their own circumstances. It was
the duty of this court to see that the party had made out his
legal right before the equitable jurisdiction is exercised—
which is only justified by the previously established legal
right. Great mischief is done by ant granting an injunc-
tion and then telling, the party obtaining it to bring his
action, as was done in this case. Whereas the mischief
might be prevented by dissolving the injunction, with liberty
to the plaintiff to bring his action. Another objection to
the granting an injunction in the first instance, and then
putting the party to prove his legal right, is, that great injury
may be done, and the court thereby runs the risk of doing
great injustice in doubtful cases. Here is a publication which
if not out and disposed of next month loses its sale alto-
gether for the year, as no one will buy an almanack in
March or April, when the action will have been tried. If
the party is prevented from having his right decided till the
spring, what is the use of his almanack then ? The injury
to him would be without remedy. It is by far the safer
and more equitable mode of exercising the jurisdie•
tion of this court, to suspend it until the legal
right is established. The cases cited to prevent the use of
trade marks do not apply to this. Marks on steel, or on a
bottle of blacking, may mislead, as there is no other means of
knowing what steel or blacking they are. But here, if any
person is deceived by the appearance, it is not by the eye he
is deceived, for all these words and descriptions on the title-
pages are plain to the eye. Certainly there appears to be a
great coincidence of thought between the plaintiff and de-
fendant, when the latter hit on the same description on his
title-page. It is difficult to believe it was quite accidental,
yet if it was not intended for fraud, it is a most profitless
imitation.—His lordship was not satisfied the legal title of
the plaintiff was made out so as to induce him ro
defendant from selling his almanack;
dissolve the injunction : let the defendant
hie sale, and let the plaintiff bring his a
Spa right.
JOSDON V. Jorme.—MARRIED WOI
Ex ECESE A DEED.—Mr. Cooper and Mr.
to eschews an order of Vice-Chancellor
wg.4cl% his honour directed a married Iv
a"ea. The facts were thews : the lady 1.
posited heir title-deeds to secure a debt due
The debt w•AS not paid, a bill was filed to enforce
mortgage, and a decree for sale of the r
master reported that this lady was a
She had married since the deposit of her d
refused to execute the conveyance of the
was no case in which a married woman wi
execute a deed. Formerly they were examined
or other person, to know it' they were willing
deed, and since the abolition of fines -

examined to know if they voluntarily acknowledged a deed,
but in no clue was there an order in them to compel thins
to ezecute a deed.
Mr. Gifford supported the order of the Vise-Chancellor:
Judgment was postponed.

Before the Vieikheasenor of DIONInd-
IN RE THE BERTH/ WON FREI SeftOOI.—ATTSEDANCE
OP THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL UPON CHARITY SOHENIIII.
This was a petition presented on behalf of the trustees of
the Bretberton Free School, in the county of Lancaster, for
the purpose of obtaining a direction from the court that cer-
tain persons therein named might be approved of and
pointed trustees of the charity ; that a runt of 2571. might be
applied in building a school room for girls, and that the trni.
tees might be permitted to pay a salary to a schoolmistress
for teaching the girls.
Mr. Wright, in support of the petition, requested that the
court would consent to the prayer of this petition without
directing a -reference to the Master. A scheme had been
settled by the master and approved of by the court in the
year 182 i). Since that time the savings of the income of the
charity had amounted to the sum of Wt., which the trustees
were desirous oflaying out in building a school-room for the
girls, who had hitherto been educated with the boys. If it
were necessary to go before the rnnetrr and have the attend-
ance of the Attorney-General, all the funds would be wasted
and there would remain nothing to build a school with. 'lt
was therefore most desirable to effect the object without that

expense.
Mr. Wray, for the Attorney-General, submitted that the
court could in no instance dispense with the attendance of the
Attorney General, and that if the parties conuucted the
business properly, it might be effected at a very trifling cost.
He had no objection, however, to allow the appointment of
the trustees without further inquiry, since they were all
gentlemen of the highest standing in the county.
The Vice-Chancellor said he could not allow that the
money would be wasted by the attendance of the Attorney-
General, who was the constituted guardian of charities, said
he thought that his attendance was necessary in all awed.
He would, therefore, refer it to the master to Inquire what
was • proper sum to be expended in building the school.
room, and to arrange • salary for the schoolmistress.
Before YieaChanseilor Wigrarn.
SHUTTLEWORTH o. Bsectovon.—DISPOISITION OP 'Pao-
PEWIT BY A LADY ERRONEOUSLY SUPPOSING HERSELF
TO BB MARRIED FOR MONEY ADVANCED TO HER SUP-
POSED HUSBAND HELD VALID.—By the will of Mr. fluesey,
dated in 1824, two freehold houses, being Nos. 2 and 3, Qid
Broad-street, London, were conveyed to trustees upon trust
to sell the same at the request of the testator's two
daughters, Mrs. Middleton and Mrs. Silver, and to pay the
interest of the proceeds and the rents of the premises till
sold, to the testator's daughters for life, for their
separate use, and after the death of the survivor of
the said two daughters, upon trust for the children
of both equally as tenants in common The testator
died in 1827 leaving his daughters surviving both of
whom had children. In 1836, Mrs. Middleton, being
then dead, Emily Middleton, one of her three children, in-
termarried with one Barber, and by indenture dated in Sep-
tember of that year reciting the death of Mrs. Middleton,
and that Emily Barbey was entitled, under the wilt of .her
grandfather, to a reversionary interest in one-third of the
property passing thereby ; and that, being so entitled, she
and her husband had agreed to borrow the sum or 400/. of
one Rice, who was to advance the money upon 1118 security
of an assignment of all her estate and interest under the will,
Mr. and Mee Barber agreed to convey and assign, and did
thereby convey and assign, all Mrs. Barber's interest under
the said will to the said Rice, kis executors," administrators,
and assigns ; subject to the usual proviso for redemption on
repayment of the money advanced. The indenture then
contained a power to Rice in case default Omelet be made in
payment of the money advanced to sell:all the estate,
right, title, and interest of Mrs. Barber in the pro-
perty thereby assigned. This deed Wes not acknow-
ledged by Mrs. Barber, in accordance witb the provisions of
the statute 3 and 4 Will. IV., cap. 74. In February, 1838,
Mr. and Mrs. Barber, by a deed of that date, duly acknow-
ledged by the lady under the atatute,'and reciting the mort-
gage to Rice, assigned all the interest of Mrs. Barber under
her grandfather's will, subject to that mortgage, to two per-
sons, named Manson and Field, absolutely; and Field after-
wards assigned his interest under this indenture to the de-
fendant Bull. In February, 1838, default having been made
in payment of the mortgage-rttOney, Rice exercised the
power of sale given to him by the deed of September, 1836,
and the plaintiff became the purchaser. Shortly after this,
it was discovered that the marriage between Mr. and Mrs.
Barber was invalid, Barber being guilty of bigamy ; and
Mrs. Barber then, at the request of the plaintiff, executed a
deed, by which she confinned the transaction with Rice in
September, 1836. In 1842 Mrs. Silver, the surviving te-
nant for life, died, and the present bill was then filed against
Mintier and Bull, and the surviving trustee, and the parties
beneficially interested under the will, stating that the chil-
dren of Mrs. Silver were illegitimate, and claiming a con-
veyance of onethird of the premises in question,
one of the questions at the hearing was, whether the plain-
tiff or the defendants Bull and Manser were, under the cir-
cumstances, the rightful owners of the property sought to be
recovered by the bill. Mr. ltomilly and Mr. Goldomid ap-
peared tor the plaintiff; Mr. Bolt and Mr. Colo for the de-
fendants Mansur and Bull; and Messrs. Bacon, Heathfield.
and Piggott for otter parties.
His Honour said that, supposingthe lady to be a feme sole,
it would be impossible to read the deed of September, 1836,
as showing that the elle was limited to anything lees than
passing the fee. The limitation to the executors, admini-
strators, and assigns of the mortgagee was an unusual way of
conveying the fee, hut the power afterwards given to Rice by
the indenture was in terms which rendered it impossible to
treat the transaction as anything less than a contract that
e should have ewer to sell the while of the laey's interest.
It happened that, at the time of executing the security, the
lady supposed herself to be a married woman, but that she had
since discovered that she was then a feme sole. The distinction
taken by Isle. Itolt, that • married woman was bound to
the extent to which she intended to make the deed opera-
tive, appeared to be sound ; and in cases, therefore, where
a wife joins her supposed husband in assigning her own
property, without acknowledging the deed, the probable
construction to be put upon the transaction would be, that
she did not mean to convey more than her husband could
convey. In the case before the court, however, the lady
had intended, and contracted to convey the whole of her
interest in the property. That was beyond dispute, and the
court would not therefore, by holding her bound us a ferns
sole, be obliging her to do more than she intended to do.
The parties claiming adversely to the plaintiff could take
no interest with the recital in their deed, that the property
had been already conveyed, The argument, logically
speaking, was not hi lied by that circumstance, because the
question would still be, what interest did the decd of Sept.,
1836, convey ; and the deed must be construed, before the
court could deal with the interest passed. His Honour con-
cluded by saying that the plaintiff appeared to be eutitled,
both by the deed of Sept., 1836, and by the subsequent
deed, to such interest as Emily Middleton had in the
premises.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Kist Paica—BeforeMr. Justice Erie and a Special Jury.
THE QUEEN E. BUITON AND DYNE/W.—CONSPIRACY.—
This
Si which was partly heard on Wednesday was re-
sumed, ir F. Thesiger, Q.C., Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Iliallantine,
Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Charnock, appearing for the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Scrjeant Allen, Mr. Keane,
i and Mr. Bud-
dleston, for the two Buttons. The evidence n chief showed
that for a series of years almost all the persons employed
ip the dyeing establishment of Mr. Lewis, of Oxendon-
dreet, have been in the habit of dyeing gouda with his
materials for their own profit, and without his consent;
that all the persons in the establishment are permitted gra-
tuitously to dye goods for themselves and their families, but
that the goods for the most part dyed by them were of a
description irreconcileable with their means and station
and were, in the phraseology of the trade, "jobs ;" that
George Baton, who was under foreman, had carried orltis
large and bold system of jobbing i that James Button,
father, who was the foreman, connived at the jobbing of his
son, jobbed himself, and permitted other workmen to job in
return for the assistance afforded, by them in their several
departments ; and that Corduroy was one of the workmen
who had so afforded assistance. For the Buttons it was
urged that the offence, if one had been proved, might be a
conspiracy,, but certainlywilB a larceny ; and that the con-
spiracy, being a misdemeanour, had merged in the larceny,
which was a felony. This was overruled. It wis then con-
tended—let, that the evidence showed delinquencies in the
younger Button, but no concert with the elder Button, for
effecting a common object ; and 2nd, that it was not worthy
of credit, because deposed to in its essential parte by wit-
nesses who had committed the very offence which
they denounced, some of whom had been discharged
b Mr. Lewis and again taken into hia service,
and all of whom had an interest in procuring the convictiona.
It was further urged,, that by a deed dated in 1829, Mr.
Lewis was bound to invest an annual sum far a period of
21 years, to accumulate for the benefit of the elder Button
and his children, subject to a deduction of 2,0001. in the
event of the elder Button being guilty of malversation, set.
ting up for himself, or going to a oval house; that the accu-
mulations now exceeded 2,0001.; that Mr. Lewis had sold
out that sum as forfeited to him ; and that the object of
this prosecution was to prevent the necessity of reimbursing
that sum. The facts on which thisimpuntlon is based vfEre
elicited from Mr. Lewis by cross-examination ; the infer-
ence, however, was denied, and it was stated that the fend
is the subject of a chancery suit, instituted since the indict-
ment was preferred. Corduroy, who conducted his own de-
fence, was not forthcoming when called on to address the
jury. The learned judge having summed up, the jury re-
tired for a short time, and then returned a verdict of Gnats,
against all the defendants, but recommended Corduroy to
mercy, on the ground that he had been misled by the bad
example of his superiors.
BERKELEY V. EAMONSON.—We have received a letter
from the defendant in this ease, complaining of our report
which appeared on Wednesday. The nature of hie objections
will be understood from the replies of our reporter, to whom
- referred •

. ,
7 I
! '
P
1
I
1 . t
ii
I
,
1 '
1
,
' 1
,
1 ,
, 1 .
,
I
I I
I '
'I
I I i
I
'
i •I
.
i 1 i''
1
, i

the legal uue to --
him to prevent the ! letter was referred •.
'edthl.wposinuld theurenftoroef jthtrint/Stimt:;rotr ottothethetarit
scussedtiltPieinffotwointithe I,,emmoleughttieb?.eme"id.ittenleid: mat.a
tram a ).,
action to prove his report of any particular action, unless material to the issue. 2.—The ; .
defendant claimed inconsistent advantages. He wanted to deny the i
)IrIEN ORDERED To ! fact of any invention, and to insist that an invention hod been oom.
[r. Saunders moved municated to Mr. Prwiton, wbcws Ma wita, that nothing had born
! communicated to him at all. 2.—As to the postscript, the report in
Her Sir J. Wieram, the Until y News is founded on the very letters of the defendant; and ;I'
woman to execute a it was proved that he had been so delighted with the progress of his
before marriage de- eon, that he would not believe the youth's performances to be his pro.
,ue by her brother. ductions. But for the misrepresentation about the medal' the
showed plain-
enforce the equitable tiff must have had a verdict. The fact that a medal was given
the property. The that, in the judgment of the Society of Arta, there had been an
a necessary party.
invention.
----
• deeds, and she now BAIL COURT.
as property.
..There
... Before Lord Desman.n
Was compelled to %AERIE v. EAOLE.—LITHOORAPHING
diluted by a judge, PRONOTER.—The plaintiff in this case
willing to execute a and the defendant was a barrister and. , . •
es they were also London and Bury Railway. The actapp, Awn* ..
l'(:- : - • ' .. .
.. • , . . .. -.
..5.....•—.1 ~---1 ,:. '
,
ssaudx.