The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENE,Tune 3.

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
INGRAM V. STIFF.-" THE DAILY LONDON
JOURNAL."

Mr. Rolt (with whom was Mr. Speed) moved for
an injunction to restrain the defendant Stiff from
printing, publishing or selling any newspaper or
other periodical under the name of the Daily Lon-
don Journal, or under any name or style of which
the words " London Journal" should form a part,
and from doing or committing any act or default
that might tend to lessen or diminish the sale or
circulation of the plaintiff Ingram's periodical
called the London Journal. The learned counsel
stated that Mr. Ingram, in September, 1857, bought
of the defendant the copyright of the London
Journal, then the property of the defendant, for
the sum of £20,000. That sale was duly coin-
. and the assignment of the property regis-
biked, As a part of the transaction the defendant
Star covenanted that he " would not directly, or
indirectly, alone, or in partnership with any other
persons, engage himself or be concerned in bring-
ing out or publishing any weekly periodical of a
nature similar to the London Journal, selling at
one penny per copy, or commit any act or default
that might tend to lessen or diminish the sale or
circulation of the said periodical, or the profit to
be derived by the plaintiff from the printing or
publishing thereof.', The London Journal was
published until the spring of last year at Mr.
Stiff's office, notwithstanding the assignment ; but
at the period just mentioned the publishing depart-
ment was transferred to the plaintiff's office, which
is on the opposite side of the Strand to Mr. Stiff's.
It was a matter of complaint on the part of the
plaintiff that some time since the defendant com-
menced a penny periodical called the Guide, similar
in form to the London Journal. Respecting this
an action had been brought at law. On the Ist
June the defendant, had, however, commenced the
publication of another iienny periodical called the
Daily London Journal. This was the periodical,
the publication of which it was now sought to re-
strain. It was asserted that the insertion of the
word " Daily" was merely a colourable alteration of
title such as the public would be likely to overlook. In
support of this proof was given that letters intended
for the defendant's paper had been delivered at the
office of the plaintiff's journal.
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. De Gex, for the de-
fendant, contended that there was not any viol ition
of the covenant. That which was complained of
was a penny paper, not what was properly under-
stood by a periodical, Nobody who saw the broad
sheet of the Daily London Journal could suppose
that it was the illustrated periodical which was the
property of the plaintiff. The two things were
entirely distinct ; hence there was no violation of
the covenant, and no case for an injunction.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the plaintiff rested
his case on fraud, by which the defendant could not
be allowed to benefit after having received no less
than £20,000 for the sale of his journal. The work
sold differed in its name by one word only from that
' against which an injunction is now asked. Why
did the defendant select that particular name when
setting up a penny newspaper ? The evidence
showed that already persons had addressed letters
to the plaintiff's office, using a wrong name, and
meaning to address themselves to the defendant's
place of business. The defendant could not com-
plain of hardship, for he had brought it upon him-
self by his own cmduct. He had been guilty of
that which justified the court in granting the motion
in the terms asked. The Court did not think that
this was a case in which the plaintiff should be put
upon any terms as to damages. The rule as to
damages did not apply to cases where there had
clearly been gross fraud.

(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)

I\ GRAM V. STIFF.-THE " DAILY LONDON JOURNAL."

The plaintiff in this case was the proprietor and
publisher of a weekly pUblication called the London
Journal and Weekly Record of Literature, Science,
and Art ; the contents of which were, not the news
of the week, but tales, novels, and articles of a
literary and scientific character. The copyright of
this publication, after it had been in existence 14
years, in the course of which the work itself had
obtained a very large circulation, was sold by the
defendant, the original proprietor, to the plaintiff
in 1857, for £20,000. The printing of the work
was continued from the time of the sale at the
defendant's office, No. 334, Strand, till April, 1858,
when it was removed to the plaintiff's office at 140,
Strand. Soon after this defendant became the pub-
lisher, at 334, Strand, of a new work, issued weekly,
and entitled The Guide to Literature, which was
alleged by the plaintiff to be, in all but its name, a
fraudulent imitation of the publication of which
the plaintiff had purchased the copyright. The
defendant, not satisfied with this, had also com-
menced issuing on the Ist of the present month, a
daily newspaper bearing the title of the Daily
London Journal. Upon an application before Vice•
Chancellor Wood made this morning, the plaintiff
obtained an injunction restraining the defendant
from prtnting, publishing, or selling the journal
bearing the title of the Daily London journal, or
any other journal of the title to which the words
" London Journal" should form part. The ground
of the Vice-Chancellor's order was, that in his
opinion, the use by the defendant of the title in
question was fraudulent and improper as against
the plaintiff, and an infringement of the copyright
which the defendant had sold to him.

From this order the defendant now appealed by
motion to discharge the Vice-Chancellor's order.
Mr. W. M. James, Q.C., and Mr. De Gex, ap-
peared in support of the appeal ; and Mr. Rolt,
Q.C., and Mr. Speed, contra.
The Lord Justice Knight Bruce said that consi-
dering the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff in
1857, and the covenants then entered into by the
defendant, hethought the title Daily London Journal
adopted for the publication, though a daily one,
which the defendant had commenced on the Ist of
the present month, was too suspicious to allow of
the dissolution of the injunction granted by the
Vice-Chancellor. At the same time he thought the
case in one sense might be open to doubt, and it
would therefore bebut reasonable that there should
be an undertaking given by the plaintiff, and that
the injunction should be continued, the plaintiff
undertaking, in the event of its dissolution or mo-
dification, to abide by any order of this court as to
damages, and by the defendant to bring his action
within a week—the defendant to be allowed, with-
out reference to any question in the action of
damages, to publish the impression of the Daily
London Journal to-morrow morning.
The Lord Justice Turner said it was unnecessary
for him to give any opinion upon the case, further
than saying that he felt considerable doubt whether
this injunction ought to have been granted at all.
He should have had no doubt had the defendant
adopted the title of the Daily Journal without the
word " London."

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MAUD (IN FOR3IA PAUPERIS) V. MAUD.-SPECIAL

JURY.

This was a suit arising out of a codicil, executed
on the 29th of October, 1857, by Mr. John George
Maud, late of Croydon. The testator was formerly
an auctioneer and wine merchant, but for the
last twenty-eight years of his life had been
a member of the corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms.
He had had 17 children, but only 13 sur-
vived. He ,left property worth about £B5O a year,
which, by a will made in 1850, he left first to
his wife, and then directed it to be divided equally
amongst his children. The codicil in dispute con-
tained the following clause—" I renounce Lavinia
Bailey Maud. my daughter, from any benefits
arising from my will; but should she follow in the
paths of virtue and obedience to the wishes of my
dear wife and my executors, they may give her by
instalments, if they think proper, the sum of £200."
The testator died in about a year after he had exe-
cuted this document. It was propounded by the
defendant (Mrs. Maud) and resisted by Miss Maud,
on the ground of her father's testamentary incom-
petency, and of her mother's undue influence over
him.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott, Dr. Spinks, and Dr. Wara-
bey appeared for the plaintiff; Dr. Phillimore,
Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for Mrs. Maud.
The case was a very painful one. Up to 1853
Miss Maud had been her parents' favourite
daughter; but in that year she went to the Crystal
Palace without leave. On her return they confined
her to her room for about three months ; after
which time (although she was 25 years of age) they
sent her to school, first at Clapham and afterwards
at Peckham. She remained at the latter place till
1857, and since then it was feared she had been
leading an immoral life, which was allegep to be
the reason why her father had excluded her from
all benefit under his property.
On the other side it was contended that the de-
fendant left her husband, was addicted to drink-
ing, and that she was a person of very overbear-
ing temper. For the single offence of going with-
out leave to the Crystal Palace, she had virtually
deprived her daughter of her home. A great deal
of evidence was given to substantiate these charges
against the defendant and to show that she was
likely to have compelled her husband to execute the
codicil.
His lordship, in summing up, censured the con-
duct of both litigants. It was, unhappily, too clear
that the plaintiff had become an outcast from
society; but the defendant's behaviour had been
injudicious, harsh, and wimotlierl.y. At the same
e jury had to try,
time that was not the issue tia.

They had simply to determine whether or not the
testator had been subjected to any coercion in the
execution of the codicil. „
The jury, without hesitation, found the de-
fendant, and thus established the codicil. "-

____
The court, however, directed that the costs in-
curred by the plaintiff before she was admitted a
pauper should be paid out of the estate.

HYDE V. HYDE.

This was a petition for a judicial separation pro-
moted by Mrs. Esther Annie Hyde, against her
husband, Mr. Charles Henry Hyde, on the ground
of adultery.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Barry appeared
for the wife. The husband was undefended. _

The parties were married at St. Marylebone
church on the 18th of July, 1845. They cohabited
for twelve years, and had two children, of whom
one still survived. In 18.57 the respondent formed
an adulterous connexion with a woman named Jane
Higgs, with whom he was living as man and wife.
Tne jury having found the fact of adultery,
His lordship decreed the separation, with costs.