The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-05 00:00:00

RATE r. VETCALVIS.

This was a motion to commit the defendant, a chemist and
druggist in Leeds, for • breach of an injunction granted by
his Honour in HOW, to re-train him from selling certain pills
known ea.° Kaye's Worielell's Vegetable Restorative Pills."
It appeared that after the injunction defendant was com-
mitted for a breach of the injunction, and was imprisoned
for warty a year. It wee uow alleged that he had again
committed a breech by selling pills through a person named
'reeler, at Whitby.
kr. Taylor submitted that technically there bad been no
breach, as defendant sold the pills under the name of Met-
calf, Kay, and Wendell's Vegetable Restorative Pills, and
be bad purchased the right of Kay and Woodall, to use
their name.

Mr. Ste Vela, in reply, submitted that it was no answer
that defendant had obtained the sanction of two other per-
sons of the names of Kay and Wondall, and that the al-
teration of the namo of Worsdell to Wondall was merely
colourable.

The rice-Chancellor said, though be was of opinion that
the coarse pursued by the defendant was unjustifiable and
unworthy, and a trick and contrivance not perhaps to injure
the plaintiff but to benefit himself, and though he
thought that plaintiff might be entitled to an injunction in
larger terms, yet Le was of opinion that technically there
bad been no breach of tLe injunction that was granted, and
the motion must therefore be dismissed, but under the
crr-
cumstances without costs,

(Before
INIUGLAtI r. CULVEKWELL.

Sir John Stuart.)

The question in this case is whether • transaction which
took place in March, 1842, in reference to a house,
vu a mortgage or • sale thereof by the plaintiff to
the defendant. The case is not yet concluded.
Mr. Melina, Mr. Greene, Mr. Crown, and Mr. Denney are
counsel in the case.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 4.

Bitting at Nisi Prim, at Westminster.—(Before Mr. Justice
Crompton and a Common Jury.)

This was the first day of the Alichashow; term nisi prim
sittings at Weatinioster. His lordship was occupied the
whole of the day in hearing two causes of no public interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAB.—Nov. 1

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Mkt Justice Erie and
Justices Williams, Byks, and Keating.)

a•MILICIC T. WHITE.—A NAN =LLD DT • iIItaTIVZ HOWL
Mr. Patchett stated that between eleven and twelve on a
morning in May last the plaintiff's husband was walking on
the foot pavement in Finsbury-circus, and at the mime time
the defendant was riding in the roadway. Unfortunately
he lees the control of the animal, which got upon the pave-
ment, knocked the plaintiff's husband down, and uninjured
hint that he died. The plaintiff sued him in the Lord
Mayor's Overt to recover damages for her husband's death,
upon the pound that he had been killed through the
negligence of the defendant; but the Remickr thought
that there was no evidence of negligence, and nousuited the
plaintiff. The present motion, however, was for a rule fora
new trial, and in support of it, it was stated that when the
horse was WO yards from the deceased it showed gigue of
restlesansea, and there was time for the defendant to dis-
mount and bold it. Further it was submitted, that the
defendant having come upon the footway will his horse,
there was prima fade evidence of negligence on his part ;
and that it must be takeu that there was an implied under-
taking on the part of a person riding in the streets of
London so to control his hones as to prevent it impairing
en the footway.
Rule granted.
DAMPS r. BARRIS ADD ANOTHER.—A TWICL TRIED CARL
This was an action to recover dums for improper die.
mieal from an engagement as attorney u clerk, and it had
been twice tried, the verdict being on the first occasion for
the plaintiff, and next for the defendants.

Mr. Serjeagt Hallam'w now applied for • rule for a third
trial, and stated that the alleged ground of dismissal was that
the plaintiff had absented himself from his employment
without leave for three days. On the last trial A was said
that the plaintiff had been told that during these three days
one of the parties in the Chancery suit of " Young v.
Richardson" was coming to consult Mr. Harris, and that
peat inconvenience bed arisen in consequence of the plain.
tine absence. The learned Serjeant added that this evidence
had taken the plaintiff by surprise, and he stated at some
length cireunistauces to show that the facts had not been
accurately represented before the jury.
Kule granted.