The Sun.
London, England, 1867-01-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONI. ON, TUESDA Y E vENIN

S HARE MARKETS.—This day.

ISSE

100
100
100
all
100
100

741 4 1 81
Si}

1011 1

1610

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Justices.)

MAXWELL V. HOGG-HOGG V. MAXWELL-TIIE RIVAL
BELGRAVIAS."

Mr. Dickinson having concluded his argument in favour
of tho plaintiff Maxwell, asking for a stoppage of the
"Belgravia" published by the defendant,
Mr.Swanston followed on the same side, and contended
that the expense incurred by the plaintiff, and the notice
to publish, which must have come to his knowledge,
constituted a right on the part of Mr. Maxwell, to the in-
junction asked for.
Lord-Justice Turner, without calling upon Mr. Green to
open the arguments for Mr. Hogg, said the court was quite
prepared to give its decision on the matter before it. The
bill b..fore them, tiled by the plaintiff stated lie extensively
advertised a work in July 1866, up to Oct. in the same year
and that he had expended a large sum of money in secur-
ing authors and artists to contribute to a certain work, but
that. in September another person published. under the title
of "Belgravia," which he had selected as the title for his
bock or magazine. The plaintiff asked the Court to grant
an injunction against the defendant to restrain the second
publisher frain selling, issuing, or offering for sale
a magazine under the title of "Belgravia." The case was
altogether new, and therefore the Court thought the plain-
tiff must show some property or right in the subject of his
claim,w bother the ladvertisements or expenditure had
created such a sight as to entitle the plaintiff to maintain
his right in that court to the extent of calling upon
it to restrain a person from publishing a work of the
nature in question. On the ground of expenditure the
Court did not think that because a person expended a
large amount of money on a publication which had never
been given to the world, that therefore he had a
right to come forward and ask the Court to restrain
a person from doing that which the person seeking the
aid of the court had not done himself. If the circumstances
of expenditure would not do, the court would next pro-
ceed to consider whether the publication of the advertise-
ments announcing the appearance of the magazine had
constituted the right. The advertisements he (Lord Justice
Turner) thought were nothing more than a publication
of the intention of the plaintiff to publish a work of a cer-
tain name, and nothing more. He did not think that
circumstances could be consideied as constituting any title
to the name under which the work was to be published.
If so the consequences would become very serious, as he
might come to that court and say he (plaintiff) had adver-
tised a work ; and he, therefore, called upon the Court to
prevent every other person from doing the same thing
until he had an opportunity of giving his book to the
world. Tho publication of advertisements gave
no obligations to complete the work, and the
Court would, therefore, not feel disposed to give
the plaintiff the powerof preventing others from doing that
which he was under an obligation to do himself. The
present case was not one where advertisements were fol-
lowed by publication, but of advertisements alone. Enter-
taining the bill of the plaintiff the Court thought would be
fraught with the most serious consequences. By such a
bill anybody might appropriate a name of the most valu-
able description for the title of some intended publication,
or it might sanction the taking of the name of an eminent
firm, which might be of the greatest value, and then the
person doing so might come into that court and ask it
to issue an injunction to restrain other persons from doing
the same. Looking at the extreme injustice that might
arise from entertaining suoh a proposition, he was of opi-
nion that there was no principle or authority upon s hich
the bill could be maintained. It must, therefore, in his
opinion, be dismissed.
Lord Justice Cairns said they had not heard any part of
Hogg's case. That which had been before the Court con-
sisted solely of that of Maxwell, and therefore he should
only speak of that. He stated that he had secured the
services of a lady of great celebrity as an authoress to
edits a new magazine to be called "Belgravia," that he had
incurred great expense in collecting materials for the pub-
lication, but all this woe 'done before the publication of the
magazine. Before that was done, another person an-
ticipated Maxwell, and put into the market a shil-
ling magazine of the same name as that of the plaintiff,
and he then came to this court to ask for an injunction.
The question for the Court was, not the loss that would
be sustained if such a book was allowed to remainin
circulation, but whether the plaintiff had shown his right
in the property to be so protected. Could a property bo
acquired in a name before the veritable article had been put
upon the market for sale. Lord Westbury had decided a
case that bore upon the matter under the consideration of
the Court; he had stated that there .could be no property
in a certain word or name, but immediately that name was
stamped on a stick of liquorice it became the property or
trade mark of the person using it. But here the matter was
could a right be acquired before the veritable
article had been put on the market. The plain-
tiff contended that he had established his right
by the publication of advertisements and the outlay of a
large sum of money. The advertisements only wont the
length of saying that a certain thing was intended to be
done, but they implied no obligation, and with respect to
expedition he thought that equally fallacious. The mere
intention to use a certain name doos not allow a pei-son to
acquire a right, and therefore he thought Oto bill must be
dismissed.

Mr. Green then opened the case of Hogg v. Maxwell.
He said that so long ago as Oct. 12, 1866, that Hogg in-
tended to publish a certain magazine, and registered the
title of it as Belgravia, when the defendant some time after
appropriated it.

Lord Justice Cairns remarked that the matter just settled
by the court gave the plaintiff in the present case the right
to use it.

Mr. Groen contended that his client had a right and
title by copyright previous to that of the defendant, but if
he had not, he thought the court would hold that the
actual publication of the magazine entitled Belgravia by
Mr. Hogg on Sept. 24 gave him a right to the title as a
trade mark. Ho had also acted in conformity with all the
acts of Parliament, and on that ground, if not on the other,
he maintained he had the solo right and title to publish the
work.

At the conclusion of the learned gentleman's argu-
ments,

Lord Justice Cairns, without calling upon Mr. Dickin-
son to reply, said the bill must be dismissed.
Lord Justice Turner was of the same opinion.
The result of this decision is that both parties stand in
the same position they did bolero legal proceedings com-
menced, each having to pay his own costs.

---
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons

--- -----
Martin, Channel!, and Pigott.)
GIBSON V. VESEY.
Mr. Powell, Q.C., on behalf of the plaintiff in this case
moved for a rule to sot aside a nonsuit, which had been
entered al a trial before the Lord Chief Baron at Guildhall,
at the sittings after last term, and for a new trial. The
plaintiff was a farmer. lie had land in the neighbourhood
of Huntingdon, where the defendants, Messrs. Vesey,
were bankers. Towards the close of last year the plain-
tiff became embarrassed, and sold his property by auction,
out of the proceeds of which ho paid his landlord, and
placed the remainder in the hands of his solicitor for the i
benefit of his creditors. On the affidavit of two per-
sons named Richardson and Waine, the latter of whom
swore that the plaintiff told him that he intended
to go to Jersey for the purpose of avoiding his creditors
and that he would take his money with him, a capias was
issued for his arrest at tho suit of one of his creditors.
However, the plaintiff paid the debt into court, and the
capias was discharged. A few days afterwards an attorney
named Reynolds, in Lincoln's-inn-fields, received a tele-
gram, fcllowed by a letter from the country soli-
citors of the defendants, instructing him to issue
another capias against the plaintiff, which was
accordingly done. The only ground on which this latter
capias was obtained .was.•an affidavit of Mr. Reynolds,
stating his belief that the plaintiff was about to leave the
country, which was founded on the affidavit of Messrs.
Richardson and Waine. The learned counsel said that
this was a malicious proceeding within the meaning of the
law, as Mr. Reynolds should have informed himself of the
fact to which he deposed instead of depending entirely on
the first affidavits.
The Lord Chief Baron said that he directed a nonsuit,
because he thought there was no case to go to a jury. If
it had been shown at the trial that Mr. Reynolds had
made an affidavit, knowing that what ho averred was
false, the case would have been different, and then a claim
of action would lie against the defendants for the act of
their agent, but there was no reason to suspect that he
did not fully believe what he swore to.
The other learned Judges concurred with his lordship,
and the rule was accordingly refused.