The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
Their lordships were this morning occupied with the
part-heard appeal motion of the Attorney-General v. the
Sheffield Gas Company.

(Before Viee-Cha,ncellor Kindersley.)
MURRAY V. BOGUS.-COPYWRIGHT.

This was an application for an injunction by Mr.
Murray, the publisher, to restrain Mr. Bogue, of Fleet-
street, from continuing to publish a book entitled " Swit-
zerland and the Savoy," which it was alleged was printed
from a book previously published on the same subject by
Mr. Murray. It appeared that in 1838 Mr. Murray
first published a hand-book for " Switzerland, the Alps
of Savoy and Piedmont," one of the famous red series so
well-known to continental travellers, which reached
its fifth edition last year. Soon after Mr. Bogue
advertised a series of hand-books for travellers, of
which two were published—" Belgium and the Rhine'.
and Switzerland and the Savoy," which were bound and
lettered in exactly the same manner as Mr. Murray's
series. On examining the latter book, Mr. Murray was
of opinion that it was a mere copy in design, and in
many instances in the text also, of his book, and accord-
ingly made the present application for an injunction to
restrain the present publication. The case was argued
at some length last term.
His Honour this morning gave judgment.

After comparing both the books with other works
published in Germany and in America, on the subject,
he was of opinion that the defendant had not made an
unfair use of the plaintiff's book, and that no case had
been made out for the interference of the Court. He
must, therefore, refuse the application.
Injunction refused.

No business of importance came before the other
Courts.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
WALSH V. lONIDES.

This was an application for a prohibition to stay all
proceedings on a plaint in the Liverpool County Court.
The action was brought on a contract by which it was
agreed by one party to sell a cargo on board a ship, and
to deliver it at any portion of the United Kingdom ; and
by the other to pay the price agreed upon, on the
delivery of the shipping documents and the policy of
insurance. At Liverpool a demand on the vendor was
made for the shipping documents and policy of insurance,
but he failed to produce them, and proceedings were
taken against him by the purchaser ; but in his par-
ticulars of demand he stated that he brought the action,
for not delivering the cargo, which was a cause of action
not arising within the jurisdiction of the County Court
at Liverpool, because the cargo was to have been
delivered at Drogheda.

Lord Campbell, this morning, stated that the Court
were of opinion that the rule should be made absolute,
with certain modifications. They were extremely re-
luctant to interfere with the jurisdiction of County
Courts, unless where it was clearly exceeded, and, in
that case it was their bounden duty to grant a prohibi-
tion. As the contract in the present case was made in
Liverpool, they could not say that a general prohibition
should proceed. It appeared, from ancient authorities,
that in ecclesiastical matters partial prohibitions were
issued, and the Court thought the proper course with
regard to this application would be to grant a prohibi-
tion against all proceedings as to that breach, which was
not within the jurisdiction of the Liverpool County
Court, namely, not delivering the cargo, leaving the
plaintiff still at liberty to proceed under the plaint for not
delivering shipping documents and policy of insurance,
the judge of the Court having discretion to allow the
particulars of demand to be amended, and restricted to
that part of the contract.
Rule absolute accordingly.