The National Register.
London, England, 1820-02-21 00:00:00

L.4IV INTELLIGENCE.

I

.~

couar OF KING'` BENCH, GUILDHALL. FEB. 45.
LA AIMUIi V. GOI•

Tit s any an action un Ow ease brou.glit by Mrs. Lievaibr,
lie s -I. r, Mill vlitisrls•lor tof li•lftiotuce liA;litotoi the
defendant, a medical bookseller. and printer and ens, aver.
ti tale li. glt. 'Ube derlarati aaaa stated that the plaint
iii
was praprietist of Harvsy's fish-sauce, and charged defer
dual 5% it. having punished labeis similar to those whet.
were stuck ilk he Omni itl 's bottles, and bill/111K NOW
11. ales.... flatlet and Hardie, cis) mos and dvu4sisisi
',Well Street, C10t... wide ;by amain ale.eaf the plaintiff
M. 14 injuied in the sale of her 1411 Ce, but the sauce
tt glided as bad e harrier.
Ike facts of this case were, that Mr. Harvey, who for-
ninety kept ass ion at Reams, taw the illVellier of the Cele.
heated sauce koman is his slismi•. In the year 1199 he gave
the receipt to his .e.ter, Ma. lattently, is Ito carried on a
torohiable trade iu this article ,as Edwurif Street. P0111111(11
Squire. Mrs. Lazenby aftei wade retired from business
such she gave up to her sow. Mrs. Lazenby had beau long
maitre that spurinus onto of mace bad been sold for hers,
but she ant nut able to discover by 'whom at Is ngth an ac-
valeta happened which led to a fliscuvery. A boy calle4ms
Mrs. Lazenby with a parcel containing SOO liibels. Mrs. I,
Laarishy. out having 'ordered auy labels. inquired from
to loom he bad brought them. The buy said they came true
Ilse defetaltint, who had been in the habit of printing Mrs.
Lizenby's labels for many years. On looking at the labels,
Mrs. Latentis observed that the labels, though at first sight
they resembled those used by heiself, weir. upon a minute
exaatalt.atioet, itiffrient iii some trilling circionistaliecs--the
wand '• London" in the one bring printed iii small letters
in the same line with Edward.street ; in the oilier. this
word airs printed in capitals in a line by itself. Upon
this she sent lair attowieyto the defendant. He showed
him the labels, and asked him whether he had printed
them. The defendant acknowledged that he had en.
erased a plate ftosu Which the labels, were printed some
years berme. He said he had done so without the privity
or consent of Mrs. Liezenhy t it was done by the order
of Messrs. Flatlet and Hardie, who had :Mies printed from
it from lime to time, as they required them. The Wed
in question was printed 6ir a gent lentati,who, as defendant
believed, was the successor of Messrs. flatlet and Hardie.
They were to be called for ; being left in the shop, and
the boy seeing the 'tame of Lazenby 'you them, bail
taut' d them by mistake to the plaintiff's. 'flit defendant
staid, he ass *Wing to give up the plate, which the
slummy declined. The defendant said he saw nu impro•
priety iu doing what he hail done.
The Lord Chief Justice said, that the defendant seemed
to think lie had a right to act in she instinct lie had done
It was fit it nilolll{l be publicly known that this was un-
less fol. A person might tell any conianodity lie pleased,
provided lie sold it as his owes, but it was unlawful for him
to sell it as the invention of another person. His Lordship
said this might affect the inventor, toot only by devreming
Ire sale of his goods, hat if the substituted article was an
inferior one, it would injure the reputation of the original
invention. It was slot only unlawful to sell a substituted
commodity, it was also mile% fail for a printer to enable a
person to do this, by supplying hint with bills si oiler to
those used by iloe original proprietor.
The plaintiff's counsel said, the object of the plaintiff
in bringing this action was to toy the righs, and give
publicity to it. He would the not requite more than
nominal damages.
The Jury accoodingly gave a verdict for the plaintff,
&Haagen 40s.
SMITH V. BUTT.
This was an action to reviver from the defendant a sum
of 4.1. paid in the plaintiff's own house, under the tol.
owing circumstances:—
The plaintiff had been a cheevemnager In the Borough,
aod the defendant a cheese factor, who occasionally sold
him goods. The plaintiff's affairs because embarrassed.
sod be proposed to the whole of his creditors a composition
ot M iu the pound on the amount of his debts; the defea-
dant interfeted with anise principals fur whom be
acted. and agreed to sign the deed of composition for them
all, with the exception of one named Evans. upon whose
debt be insisted to receive 7s, in the plaudit, and the differ-
ence between four and seven shillings on this man's debt
would amount to 481. es. The defendant resisted all appli-
oration to abate this demand, and an interview took place
between him, the plaintiff, and his wife. at the Chambers
of their Attorney. the defendant positively refused to sign
there, except on the conditions mentioned, and the Attor-
ney retired, leaving the parties to mettle the difference. He
returned after &short time, and then the defendant received
in his presence a composition at 41. and signed the deed,
end the wife of Smith, the plaintiff, expressed herself ex-
tremely thankful to the defendant for the care and trouble
it had taken its the settlement of her bushaad's affairs.
The Attorney, also was examined, could net swear of his
own know .edge. that MM. Smith had paid the 4411. to the
defendant durtsig his absence; it did not appear that the
money was ever handed over to Evans.
Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Gurney cunducted the business for
the plaintiff; mid Mr. Canspb.ell for the defendant, strestgly
reproved, in his address to the Jury, the shabby aad noir**.
tut cioduct of tie plaintiff, in bringing this action against the 11
defendant, after acknowledging the trouble he had kindly
takes in the se ailment of his *Mai's, instead of bringing the 1,
action against Evans, to whom 1w must know the money
was hasid-il over, if it really had been paid to the defendant;
but of that fact the Jury had uo proof further than by
inference.
The Cuter Jeerscr, in slimming np for the Jury, told
them that the law on this Oetalliall I. as, that a„ as„ bs
signing ally composition, such as that in question, 011ie
the number of other creditors, had a right to receive any
money or security in consideration of his signature, be.
voted Ilse proportion accepted by the rest of the creditors.,
because in so doing lie would have beet' guilty of a frau
dulent collusion tu deceive them ; and the debtor 'baying
such money or security, would be entitled in action to re-
cover the snot an paid. In this case there certainly was no
positive proot the the 461. was paid to the dc(rosolant, but
'lsere was xli of evidence for *lir jury to infer whether
It was or was not, fro in the transaction pros ed tio have taken
place at the atiorsiers chambers. H. the Jury should
think that the money nag paid to the defendant, Ise had not
wailed himself, as be might hose done, of the evidence of
Evans, to prove that the money is iss paid to him ; and cou-
wipeout) of Hie Jury thought the money was paid to the
deffeisdatat by the plaintiff, their verdict world be fur the
plaintiff.
Verdict aicerellegly.—Damages4Bl. Is.