The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CIiANCELLOR'S COURT, FEB. 22.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR took motions today,
it being the second seal after Hilary Term.
DAVIS AND OTHERS V. BRYANT.—INJUNCTION.
A CASE OF PICKLES.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE applied to-day in this case, upon no-
tice for a special injunction. restrain the defendant from
using labels which were counterfeits of those used by the plain-
tiffs. The plaintiffs are Messrs. Hesketh Davis and Co., the
eminent oil and pickle dealers of Leadenhall-street, and the
defendant is the Superintendent of St. James's Workhouse.
From the statements of the Learned Counsel it appeared that
the pickles of the plaintiffs having acquired considerable repu-
tation in India, the defendant, who had a son there, had been
in the habit for sometime past of sending articles to him, the
bottles of which were labelled with an exact imitation of the
labels used by the plaintiffs. This was not discovered
by the plaintiffs till a short time ago, and the manner of
that discovery was rather singular. A note was sent
to the plaintiffs from an engraver, stating that he thought it
would be a great improvement if they would have the plate of
their labels touched up a little, as it hail become time worse for
use ; this communication surp-ised them, knowing that the
party who had written to them was not the engraver they
employed, and they immediately waited upon the engraver,
when, to their astonishment, they discovered that the pi ate was
a spurious one, and that it had been sent to the engraver by
the defendant. Upon this a remonstrance was sent to the de-
fendant, but without effect, and the only course left open to
the plaintiffs for the purpose of putting down this simple and
modest use of their labels by the defendant, was to apply to that
Court for the injunction. Notice had been given to the de-
fendant of the application, but he had very wisely thought
proper not to appear.
The VICE CHANCELLOR, without the least hesitation, im-
mediately granted the injunction.

Lord W HARNCLIFFE then said that seeing that
the publication of the proceedings in the recent trial of
the E irl Cardigan had been ordered by their Lord-
ships, he wished to ask the Noble Lord on the Wool-
sack (Lord Shaftesbury) whether there was any record
of what had been said by the Learned Lord the Lord
High Steward.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY did not know
whether there was any such record. He did not think
it was usual, but he would make inquiry.
Lord W HARNCLIFFE thought it important that
the address of the Lord High Steward to their
Lordships should be published, as it would put
an end to a great deal of the nonsense that was
talked of on the subject. The Noble Lord
then gave notice that immediately after the holidays, it
the muter were not taken up by some other of their
Lordships, he would bring in a Bill to clear up all
doubts as to a Peer pleading his privileee in case of con-
viction for felony. He thought it would be very much
to the discredit of their Lordships if that matter were
EXCHEQUER CHAIIIBER, FEB. • 22. not cleared up, after what had been said in respect to
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE MANCHESTER CHARTER, the late trial.
The Judges of the Courts of Queen's Bench and The Marquis of NORMANBY said that a Noble
Common Pleas sat in error this morning, upon the case of Friend of his had intended to take the matter up, but
RUTTER V. CHAPMAN. would not, of course, take it out of the hands of the
Their Lordships delivered their judgments seriatim. Noble Baron opposite. The Noble Marquis then laid
Lord DENMAN said the case was one of the very upon the table the Report of the Hand-loom Weavers'
utmost importance, not only to the locality concerned, Commission.
but also to the general administration of the law, and he The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition
could not but regret that he had been unable to make from Somersetshire for the better observing the Sabbath,
up his mind to agree with his brother Judges upon the especially upon railways.
case. They had taken every pains to come to an THE CHARTISTS.—REPEAL OF THE
unanimous conclusion. They had attended earnestly UNION.
to the arguments which had been so ably advanced at Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
the bar. They had many consultations amongst them- National Charter Association of Bloomsbury, praying
selves, but he had not been able to bring his for the recal of Frost, Williams, and Jones. Formerly
mind to the same conclusion as the majority in presenting a petition from the same Association for
of his brethren. He thought it right to the release of persons confined for mere opinions and
state that he could not regard the plaintiff in the pre- not acts, he had taken occasion to refer to the unfor-
sent case as a stranger, as he had been denominated by tunate conduct pursued by her Majesty's Ministers
some of his brethren. He was a coroner who might with regard to the Repeal agitation in Ireland,
exercise his functions throughout the county, and even but he had since heard that the Government had put a
in Manchester itself, unless another person was legally sort of mark upon every person who took part in this
appointed to supersede him. The question resolved question. He was told that a gentleman named Roche,
itself into this—Whether the inhabitants of Man- who stood first on the list selected by the Judge for
chester had or had not properly petitioned for persons to fill the office of High Sheriff for the county
a Court of Quarter Sessions. The first point of Cork, had been rejected on the ground that he was
raised was whether the Learned Judge had properly favourable to the repeal of the Union. He was told
left the case to the Jury. The facts appeared to be that that gentleman had been asked whether, in case
these :—On the '2d of February, 1837, a requisition of his being selected to fill the office, he would pledge
was presented to the Boroughreeve requesting him to himself to abstain from giving any opinion on the sub-
call a public meeting, for the purpose of considering ject. Mr. Roche refused to do so, and on that ground
the propriety of petitioning for an Act of Ineorpora- ho was rejected. He (Lord Brougham) now wished
tion. The meeting was held on the 9th of to ask his Noble Friend (Lord Normanby) whether
February, and rate-payers to the number of that statement was true or not ?
one thousand attended. A resolution was pro- The Marquis of NORMANBY had had no direct
posed and carried by; a large majority, that the peti- communication on the subject with his Noble Friend
tion should be presented—it was then proved on the the Lord Lieutenant for lrelend ; but from what he
part of the plaintiff, that a counter petition was got up had heard ho had no hesitation in saying that
—that it was signed by 6,000 inhabitants of the a correspondence did take place with Mr.
Borough of Manchester—that it was presented Roche, in consequence of which his Noble Friend
after the former petition, but before it was (the Lord-Lieutenant) had selected for the office of
taken into consideration by the Privy Council, Sheriff the gentleman whose name was second on the list.
and that it was signed by more inhabitants than the Lord BROUGHAM—I believe, my Lords, that
previous petition, but still neither of them by a majo- no one will think that I hold different opinions on
rity of the inhabitants—that these facts were laid be- the subject of the repeal of the Union from
fore the Jury, but that the Judge took it upon him- those of my Learned Friend, or of the Lord-Lieu-
self to decide that her Majesty had the power tenant of Ireland. But I must say again that
to grant the Corporation according to the prayer Ido not think this the way to expose the error, or to
of the first petition, and that to that leaving a bill of put down the discussion of that question. I cannot see
exceptions was offered by the plaintiff's Counsel. Now, why the repeal of the Union is to be excepted from
no doubt existed but that a meeting way called, but other questions, and why men should be prevented from
the majority had no power to bind over the minority, taking part in this discussion just as much as any
far less then could they be supposed to bind the very large other, the discussion being no offence known to the law.
majority of the inhabitants who were absent. The Lord GLENGALL moved for the list of persons
petition signed by 6,000 inhabitants was afterwards pre- sent into the Lord Lieutenant to be selected for the
rented--that ought to have been left to the Jury, and office of Sheriff for the year 1841, with the names of
the mere balance of numbers did not authorise the those who had been selected.
Learned Judge in leaving the case, as he did, to the PERSIA.
Jury. In reply, the plaintiff's Counsel contend- The Earl of RIPON then rose to bring ed that no judicial power was conferred by ward the motion of which he had given notice, with
for-
the Municipal Act on the Privy Council ; and respect to the state of our relations with Persia.
although they: were commanded to consider petitions He thought that the circumstances of the case. ji; sta.
presented, and would not recommend that the prayers fled him in making the motion, and he could not, when
of them should be acceded to unless they were of opi- he had first given notice of it, imagine that any pub-
nion that it would be for the benefit of the town that lie inconvenience could possibly result from complyng
the prayer should be granted, still that was not con- with it, or from his giving such notice, for had he irna-
elusive evidence against all parties Concerned ; and gined that any inconvenience could have possibly arisen
the defendants, acting upon the best opinions he certainly should not have given such notice. There
y, was something peculiar, something very little under-
of Counsel, had argued the case most learned!
and at great length, The Plaintiff's argument, how- stood, with respect to our relations with Persia,
ever, appeared to him to be well founded. Supposing and he would now draw their Lordships' attention
the petition of the 4,000 to have given power to the to the manner in which those relations appeared
Queen to grant the Charter, the petition of the 6,000 to stand. At the opening of the Session of 1839,
did not revoke it in point of law. That was assumed her Majesty, in her speech from the throne, had
by the Learned Judge. The second objection stated that an interruption in our friendly re la-
taken, was as to the validity of the first peti- tiona with the Court of Persia had taken place;
tion, and that they did not proceed to incorpo- and a hope was also expressed that such interruption
rate those persons who had petitioned for the Chaeter ; would not be of long continuance. Soon after the coin-
and it was said that a 3 those who petit:oiled for the mencement of tho Session a mass of papers had been
Charter might be excluded from its benefits, and the laid before ParliaMent, for the purpose of show-
Charter only granted to those who were opposed to it. ing the cause of that interruption in our
That was an exaegerated view of the case, and it might friendly relations, which had been alluded to
be said that in such a case the Charter would not be at- in the Speech, and why our Minister at Teheran had
cepted. He had no doubt of the power of :the withdrawn from that Court. It appeared that those
Crown to grant a Charter to any part of a town grounds were principally connected with the conduct
to incorporate certain districts and leave out others --it which had bee.) pursued by the authorities of Persia
was quite clear that this could be done by the Croli n, towards a courier. There were other matters in ~vhich
and by no other "thority except' Parliament. 'rho the two Governments were more or less implicated,. but
Crown had delegated to Messrs. Price and Rushton the immediate cause of difference appeared to be the
those prerogatives which could only be exercised by circumstances attending this matter of the courier, to
itself. Could it be said that it would be Lim- which he should presently direct their Lordships' att 2n-
Crown to delegate to any one the tion. It appeared that our Minister had quitted the
power to nominate Mr. A. or Mr. B. as an . Court of Teheran, and had directed those attached to
Alderman or a Mayor ? Such an argument would mot the embassy to retire to Erzeroum within the Turkish
in he put forward, and lie thought that it applied equ 54'ly territory while he had directed Sir Henry Bethune
the present case. The parties nominated might and the military officers to proceed to the city of
have declined to act. Had the Crown any power, k y Bagdad. The Ambassador himself came to England.
mandamus, or otherwise, to compel them to perfore n It appeared that the Shah of Persia alarmed at the
those duties. They were
mere voluntary agent s, nospect of the interruption of the friendly relasions

ROLLS' COURT, FEB. 22.
DUNCAN V. 3I`CALMONT.
The MASTER, of the ROLLS delivered judgment in this case,.
which was argued last Michaelmas Term, when the circum-
stances of it were fully reported in The Sun.
The case came before the Court upon a motion that the de-
fendants might be restrained from prosecuting their suit in the
High Court of Admiralty against the cargo of the ship Lord
Cochrane, in respect of a bottomy bond.
His LORDSHIP, in giving judgment, observed that the cir-
cumstances relative to the bottomy bond were open to suspi-
cion, and required much explanation. He was of opinion there
was sufficient in the case to entitle the plaintiffs to have their
case investigated in a Court of Equity, a...d it did not appear
to him the Court of Admiralty could so conveniently compel
the defendants to do all that a Court of Equity cov.ld do for
the right determination of the rights of the parties. The in-
junction asked for must therefore be granted.
The Court then took motions.