The Sun.
London, England, 1867-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Justices.)
MAXWELL V. 11000 -HOOD V. MAXWELL -TILE RIVAL
" BELGRAVIA'S."

Tho arguments in this case, which has caused much
conversation in the literary circles, were opened this morn-
ing before the Lord Justices. The question in dispute was
the right to the title of " Belgravia" to a magazine, and
which each sought to maintain by cross actions. When
the case was first taken before Vice-Chancellor Steuart,
he refused to make any decree on the ground that neither
could maintain an exclusive right to the title in question.
As this decision left the property, on which Mr. Maxwell
had invested a large sum of money, in great doubt, both
parties appealed against the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor to the Lord Justices, and before the
opening of counsel was concluded on a former occa-
sion, Sir J. Turner suggested that the appeal should
be turned into a motion for decree. This was agreed to,
and this morning the arguments commenced, the question
for the court to determine being who was to enjoy the sole
privilege of calling his magazine Belgravia.
Mr. Dickinson said the plaintiff, for whom he appeared
was a gentleman who for a number of years had been en-
gaged in the publishing trade, and for some time before
the filing of the bill he conceived the notion of bringing out
a magazine entitled Belgravia. It was in the month of
June, and plaintiff registered the title in the usual way on
the 30th of July, 1866. The announcement that such a
publication would make its appearance first became know*
from an advertisement in a country paper, the Ipswich

Express.
Mr. Green (who appeared for the defendant)—No it
was not so advertised.

Mr. Dickinson continued.. He-perhaps was not strictly
correct in saying it was advertised, it was made known by
a paragraph in the iletter of a London correspondent of
that paper.
Mr. Greene—A penny-a-liner, he supposed ?
Mr. Dickenson could not tell his learned friend the
outline of the work, with other details, and the names of
the writers. Amongst them were Captain Mayne Reid,
Mr. Sala, and Miss Braddon, who would contribute a tale
called "Birds of Prey." He should also show, out of de-
fendant's own mouth, that at that time he was well ac-
quainted with the intention of the plaintiff to publish the
magazine.
Lord Justice Turner asked whether the magazine was
not Miss Braddon's.
Mr. Dickenson replied in the negaive, but that the lady
edited the magazin3, and had a large interest in it. The
plaintiff, in the course of the steps for bringing out
the magazine, made an affidavit that the title had never
before been made use of; but after this was done he went
to Stationers' Hall, and there, on searching the list, he
discovered that the title had been registered by the de-
fendant, but that he had never done anything else, either
by advertisement, or by publication towards bringing it
out.
Lord Justice Turner asked when the registry was made.
Mr. Green—On the 12th:of October, 1863.
Mr. Dickinson did not deny that, but he thought from
what he stated that he should satisfy their lordships that
the claim against defendant was altogether insupportable.
Tho defendant Hogg carried on a publication called Lon-
don Society, and on the 19th and 20th September, 1866, the
collector of advertisements for Hogg called upon the plain-
tiff, and asked him to patronise Lonaon Society by adver-
tising in it. On the 20th of September an order was given
for such advertisements to appear.
Sir J. Cairns—ln the October number of London
Society?
Mr. Dickinson said that it was so. Later on a com-
munication was made by Hogg to Maxwell that the
collector had charged too low a price for the advertise
ment, but even then no claim :was made by Hogg, or was
objection raised by him to Maxwell using the name of
"Belgravia." On the 21st of September, 1866, a proof
of the advertisement was sent by Hogg to Maxwell for
correction, and on its return no objection was then
raised by the defendant to the plaintiff's publication.
On the 24th of September, the defendant called
upon Mr. Evans, who was the engraver em-
ployed to produce an attractive wrapper for Max-
welra new magazine, and had a conversation with
him, and yet no claim to the title was raised. However,
on the 24th of September, an advertisement appeared in
one of the evening papers stating that the defendant's
magazine was just published. On the 25th of September,
the first sale of defendant's Belgravia was made, and, on
examination, it was found that it was composed of articles
intended for "Loudon Society," and bore unmistakable
evidence of being very hastily produced. He did not deny
that the defendant registered in 1163 his -intention
to publish a book under the title of " Belgravia,"
but from that time down to 1866 ho did nothing
further. He had, he believed, intended, in the
first instance to publish the magazine, but various
matters seemed to have prevented its appearance until in
the year 1864 the Messrs. Blackwood published a maga-
zine very similar to that proposed by the defendant, and
after all action on the part of the defendant. He con-
tended that the defendant had not obtained a title by
copyright, and therefore the right title belonged to the
plaintiffs, who had carried on all his transactions with re-
spect to its production in the most public manner, and in such a
manner, that had the defendant intended to raise the
question as to the right to use the title, be should have
done so before the plaintiff had made his outlay. It was
of the utmost importance to the plaintiff that the rhubarb-
coloured book called Belgravia, published by the defendant,
should be stopped because the contents were, in his esti-
mation, not worth the shilling charged for it, and that
being so, persons asking for the plaintiff's Belgravia, and
getting that of the defendant's, got an inferior article,
and loss and damage by such a sale could not but result to
the plaintiff.
The arguments
_in the case were likely to last for two
or three days.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn
and Justices Mellor, Blackburn and Lush.)

SPITHBY V. KITCHEN.
Sir R.. Collier, on behalf of the defendant, moved for
a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why a verdict
for £5O entered for him should not be set aside, as being
against evidence, and why the damages should not be re-
duced as being excessive. The action was tired at
last term, and was brought by the plaintiff for false
imprisonment. The defendant was the chief officer of the
Bradly Preventive Station, and it was contended on his part
that as being an officer of ,Customs was not liable for acts
committed by reason of his office. It appears that amongst
other of the Queen's stores the defendant had under his
care certain rope, and there were very stringent regula-
tions respecting the same. It was regulated that such,
when unfit for the use of the service, should be returned to
the docks, and sold in pieces not exceeding 6ft. in length,
so as to be unsuited to being used for rope, although it
might be turned to matting purposes, &c. The jury
found that a felony had been committed, but that the de-
fendant was not justified in taking the plaintiff into cus-
tody, and no doubt the account of the damage was in
some degree influenced by tho fact that ho was taken out
out of his bed at night. In support of the motion the
learned counsel cited 16 and 17 Victoria, section 313, by
which the laws relating to customs were consolidated and
specially exempted members of the preventive and other
departments of the customs from
_penal consequences for
their conduct when such oceurrod, as previously stated, by
reason of their duties.
The rule was granted.
ItOSE V. KITCHEN.'

This was a case in which the points raised were some.
what similar to the preceding, and a rule for a new tria
was also obtained.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Martin, Chan.

nell, and Pigott.)
RUSSELL T. TUE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER RANK.

This was a motion for a rule to set aside a verdict which
had been obtained by the plaintiff for loss sustained through
the alleged breach of contract of defendant's representa-
tive. It appeared that the plaintiff had entered a nego-
tation with the secretary of the company for a loan, which
was to be advanced by a certain day. About the middle
of Juno the plaintiff had an interview with the secre-
tary, and told him that he wanted to have the
money on the Monday following, in order to