The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELIACIENOZ.
(THIS DAY.)

CHANCERY CHAMBERS.
(Before Mr. Church, Chief Clerk.)
BARNWR RANKING CONPANT.-APPLICATION ON MR PART
Or PUTT MHAREHOLDERS TO STAY THE CALL.-EN•
PORTANT PROCZEDINGM.

The application by Mr. Joel Emanuel on the part of
some fifty alleged contributories to stay the call of 401.,
payable on the Ist proximo, mentioned yesterday, was
specially appointed to be discussed to-day. Mr. Emanuel
founded his application on his own affidavit, that the par-
ties had good defences ; that the company wasnot properly
constituted ; that it was net legally reentered ;
and, further, on the !general ground of fraud.
He quoted from the judgment of Lord Jus-
tice Turner given in the *ante case, ordering the
call to be made; that although it was made it was no
reason why it should be enforced. The chief clerk
suggested that the call might be paid into court pending
the proceedings. Mr. Emanuel objected either to pay the
call into court or to the official liquidators until the ques-
tion he intended to raise on the ground of non-liability
was decided. He wished to go fully into the case, and had
various authorities to cite in support of his applica-
tion to stay the proceedings in respect to the
call which would be payable in a few days.
The chief clerk aid not think he could go into the
merit of the case ; the call having been ordered by the
Lords Justices, he could not reverse their order by staying
it. He was willing to let the matter go before the blaster
of the Rolls to-morrow. Mr. Emanuel declined to go
into court, on account of the expense, and objected to pay
the call. There had been delay in getting up the evidence.
Mr. Handson (Freshheld and Newman) denied that there
had been any inlay on the part of the official liquidators.
The matter was ordered to stand over, with liberty to
apply on any proceedings to enforce payment of the call
against the parties. Tho call of RC is due on Monday
next.

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Biz W. Page Wood.)
FARINA V. CATHERY.

This was a suit by the celebrated manufacturer of eau
de Cologne, Johann Marie Farina, of the Julichs Plats,
Cologne, to restrain the use of the plaintiff's name and
address on any bottles of the defendant's manufacture.
The defence to the suit was understood to be that the law
of Frauds did not permit any such restriction to be
granted, inasmuch as the defendants had obtained by pur-
chase from anther Johann Marie Farina, of the Joseph's
Plats, the right to use the name in question.
The present application was made on behalf of a foreign
defendant, M. Si. H. J. Decker, who had put in an ap-
pearance only a few days ago, and now asked to be allowed
to have time to answer.

Mr. Willcock, Q.e., and Mr. Brooksbank supported the
application ; Mr. Daniel, Q.C., Mr. Deuce, Q.C., and Mr.
Markham Law opposed ; Mr. Willcock in reply.
It appeared that when the original motion for an injunc-
tion was made some three years ago, Decker (whose Eng-
lish agents the original defendants Lathery and Carmarche
were), made an affidavit, in consequence of which he
was made a defendant. Since then he had remained
abroad, the plaintiffs being unable to find where to serve
him, and had made no sign whatever until a few days
since, when the letter came from his solicitor, putting in
an appearance on his behalf.

The Vice-Chancellor after hearing the grounds of the
application, observed that the facts of the case to be tried
appeared to lie in the smallest possible compass, and re-
fused the application with costs.