The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-06 00:00:00

JAW INTEL
(THIS I

EQUITY C
(Before Vice-Chancellor
MOWN/AT r. TILT.-PHOTOGH

This was a motion on behalf
of Oxford, photographer, for an
Mt, Hudson, and Taylor, who
nese of Hatchard and Co., I'
from publishing, selling, or of
already printed, and from
selling, LA, any further
containing an engraving LI
the plaintiff's photograph of I
from in any manner intringir
in the photograph.
The pamphlet referred to is
the Right Rev. Samuel Wilberl
Oxford in Reference to Rituall
sident Member of the Universal
liaised by Hatchard and Co., Pi
Rose, of Oxford. It contain
plaintiff alleged and deposed
liaised by him of his photograph
and 60 of the pamphlet this pass
ing of " Certain Features of his'
during the last few months."
graph and signature. A photo
the attitude of a Roman Mali%
one hand, and three fingers of
act of blessing (as symbolic
the Blessed Trinity), hay*
by 'S. G. 0.,' in the 7"
bishop's secretary, wrote thus ii
the bishop has been singularly i
time to sit for his photograph,
was taken at the solicitation of
the introduction of the pi
position of the bishop is
bishop occasionally assumes'
be pardoned this slip, havi
dissenter], when pronouncinE
note in the pamphlet stating
sale at Messrs. Mowbray's, Oaf
The engravingin question (aw
copy of the photograph represent
above described, but unaccomp
series which appear in the phol
other articles of furniture. Th
that he bad the sole and exclus
saucing, and multiplying the ph
Mr. W. M. James, Q.C., am
the plaintiff.

Mr. I)ruce, Q.C., and Mr.
ant, argued that the plaint
title in conformity with
•kith and 26th Vic., c. 6
owners were the friend or f
had ordered and paid for the I
was by no means a copy ; it me
and moral attitude of the bit
illustrate more forcibly than wt
described. It was impossible t
interfere with the sale of t
act provided that copyright
representation of the same sub
The Vice-Chancellor thought
case. It was almost too plain f
dared that no one was to copy
author's consent. The plaint
author, and his statement was
really the property of those wi
it, the defendants should have
appeared on that subject was s
the defendant's own book, and
assumed to have averred
true statement. As to
oopy, that also was sworn to,
provision in the statute that o
the representation of the same sr
had no reference to this case.
might have recourse again to
common property of all ; but
existing combinations, in whick
materials. The injunction wo
out the words " a pamphlet cc
phlet the Court had nothing
graving.

(Before the Martel

RE CHARLES I.AFITTE

This was an application on br
in the same regiment to b
from the list of contribute.]
pony, which is being we
It appeared that a relative (wl,
one of those officers, and who as
of the company, requested the
applications for shares, he
deposits and take transfers of
The applicants, believing thee
accordingly sign]'
share, varying in number from
cases. No notice of anyallotnieni
but they executed transfers of
person at whose instance the
The transfers were never rig
heard no more of the matter til
court. Their names being on tl
the official liquidator on the lie
this application.
Mr. Banallay, Q.C. and Mr.
applicants; and Mr. Jeisel, Q.(
liquidator.
His Lordship said the we. we
must hold that the applicant
been allotted to them upon
and they were duly regi
Their remedy in the matter
on whose behalf they applied
of such applications could not b
it was the first time the questio
court there would be no order FU
official liquidator would have hi

COURT OF QUE
Sittings in Hamm—Meters la
tines Blackburn, Me
THE QUEEN r. THE LORD MAI
LONDON, EX PAP
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C. (witl
applied ou behalf of Mr. Osgoo
rento calling upon Mr. Nelson
he exercises the office of rights
Court of the City of London. 1
years had practised as an attoi
City of London, was in July, Itt
of chief clerk of the Sheriff's
and Corporation, with permissi
practice, and he continued to d
that time until IStis with
July of that year an ant w
county court' limited jurissii
included in it the Sheriff's Cow
and the title of chief clerk was
Mr. Osgood then applied for an
obtained a testimonial, signed b
Mr. Commissioner Kerr, the j
efficient and satisfactory Mal
charged his previous duties. TI
to the officers' and clerks' COME
an addition to the salary.
standing it appeared occurred
Kerr and Mr. akeman, the cl
in the judge of the court writin
effect that he need not attend I
That gentleman, feeling that
perly treated by Mr. Conn
to the Lord Mayor, settle{
aidered to be his griever
from the discharge of his duti,
arisen between himself, Mr. Coss
°wood, as to whose duty it was
and other papers to the judge.
was referred to the officers' and
log body being elected annually
committee held four meetings.
the officers in Mr. Hakeman and
not Mr. Osgood. They then seer
committee was appointed, who toc
they called in the easistance of tt
a view, the learned counsel as,
right, but without success. Ti
meetings in reference to Mr. I
charge had been made before tb
Osgood, and the learned commis
by the oonimittee, stated that 1
I his duty efficiently. A report W 3
its being submitted to the con'
usual manner, it was carried .s 1
those members of the commit
meetings and those who had not
The report stated that the comm
opinion that the registrar (Mi. th
was no complaint, had not prop,
and thet such irregularities h
discharge of the duties of hi'
man, as seriously interfered
duct of the business of tb
committee recommended the 4
such steps ea they might deem aa
shone of the London City Smi
1852. Mr. Osgood was called ou
appear before the Lord Mayor