The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-07 00:00:00

PERCY V. CLARE.

Mr. SPURRIER moved caparte for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from selling an oil for the hair under the name
of " Perry's Medicated Mexican Balm." The plaintiff, in
his affidavit in support of the injunction, stated that, having
purchased a recipe for an oil fur the promotion of the growth
of the human hair, had been in the habit of selling the same
under the title of " Perry's Medicated Mexican Balm," and
that on the 29. h of August last, he discovered the defendant
was selling a mixture with that inscription on the bottles.
Lord LANGDALE-If the plaintiff discovered that towards
the end of August, why did he not apply for the injunction
earlier ?

Mr. SPURRIER trusted that the circumstance of the long va-
cation intervening, would be a sufficient apology fur the delay
his client has been guilty of.
Lord LANGDALE —lt is always convenk!nt for the Court to
hear any application.
Mr. SPURRIER said his client could not have made the appli-
cation in the long vacation without incurring great expense.
Lord LANGDALE—He has waited from the 29th of August
till the 7th of November, and I think he must now wait long
enough to give the defendant the opportunity of appearing.
Let notice be given to the defendant.
- - - - - -

CLAILKE V. ALEXANDER.-CLARKS V. DALLAS.

This suit was instituted by Trustees under the will of the
Hon. and Rev. John Blackwood, late of Thayer-street, Man-
chester-square, for the administration of his estate. Among
numerous bequests and legacies contained in the will was the
following, " I desire my trustees and executors to pay to Mr.
Wm. Blackwood, my cousin, of the Account Office, Cumber-
land-place, the sum of 5001., to wet his whistle and my whistle
occasionally."—( Laughter. )
The following posse of Learned Counsel appeared for the
respective claimants :--Sir Chas. Wetherell, Messrs. Tinney,
Pemberton, Horace Twiss, Treslove, Kindersley, Spence, and
Temple, with their juniors, Messrs. Duckworth, Richards,
Rogers, Stuart, Monro, Bethel, and Hetbrington.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

• (Sittings i❑ Banco.)
LEGGE V. BEARD AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Sergeant TALFORD moved in this case for a rule to
show cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be set
aside, and a new trial had, on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence. The case was tried before Lord Abinger
at the last Gloucester assizes, and it was an action brought by
the plaintiff to recover the amount of two Bills of Exchange,
accepted by the defendants in the month of June 1836. The
defendant, Beard, had suffered judgment to go by default, and
the other defendant, Herbert, had pleaded infancy. He was
a young man who had been induced to enter into a partnership
in the last year, and on a failure in business having occurred, a
fiat of bankruptcy was issued against the parties. To support
the plea on the part of the defendant Herbert, his mother was
called, and she deposed that he was born a fortnight before the
31st March 1816, and that he was a fortnight old when
he was baptised—that circumstance had brought the date
particularly to her recollection, and he could not be of age
under the circumstances until March 1837. The tes-
timony of the mother upon that part was corroborated by
that of the daughter-of the woman who had attended her in
her confinement. Upon the cross-examination of the mother,
it was elicited that the young man believed himself of age at
the time he had accepted the bills, and that he had received
from certain trustees a sum of 2001., which he had invested in
the partnership, and which he could only have received in the
event of his being of full age. Under these circumstances,
the case was left for the Jury for their decision on the facts,
by Lord Abinger ; and it was quite clear that the verdict re-
turned could only be accounted for by the circumstance, which
was given in evidence, of the young man having believed him-
self of age at the time he entered into the partnership. The
case was considered of great importance, w►th reference to
other liabilities, affecting the bankruptcy ; and he submitted
that he had made out a case to entitle himself to the rule
prayed for.
Lord DENNIAN saw nothing in the case to call upon the
Court to disturb the finding of the Jury ; but the Court would
consult with Lord Abinger on the matter, before pronouncing
its final decision.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

( Sittings in Banco.)
ERNEsT V. BROWN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the
costs of a mortgage which he conducted for the defendant,
and, in a second count, for the value of a certain cart and
other property, sold to the defendant. The defendant pleaded
the general issue to the first count, relating to the costs of the
mortgage ; and to the second count, he pleaded, first, that he
never owed the plaintiff anything—and, secondly, that he
never owed him more thin 3L Os., which was paid into Court.
The jury found for the "plaintiff on the first count, but gave
him only Is. damages ; and they found for the defendant on
the second plea to the second count. On the taxation of costs,
the prothonotary disallowed the plaintiff's costs in part, and
allowed the defendant's costs in 30/. upon the first count.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE this day moved for a rule to show
cause why the taxation should not be reviewed. He argued
that it was erroneous in law and in principle to allow to a de-
fendant the costs upon an issue on which a verdict had been
given against him, however small the damages.
The Prothonotary, Mr. Ray, explained to "the Court, that
he had actually allowed the plaintiff all his costs in the action,
but had disallowed his costs for witnesses to prove the count
on which a verdict was given against him. •
Mr. Sergeant WILDE replied that costs were allowed to the
defendant upon the first count, on which a verdict was given
against him ; and although these costs were for witnesses who
had proved his plea upon the issues, on which a verdict was
found for him ; yet it had been -ruled repeatedly, that a de-
fendant could not :be allowed the costs of witnesses, who aro
called to an issue, on which the verdict is against him, although
they prove an. issue, on which he obtains a verdict.—Rule
granted.