The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-19 00:00:00

ALLEGED PIRACY OF A TRADE MARK AT

SHEFFIELD.

Messrs. Joseph Fenton and Cons, cutlery manu-
facturers (a firm of high stP.nding in Sheffield),
were summoned before the magistrates at Sheffield
yesterday, on a charge of pirating the trade mark
of Mary Hancock, widow of the late Samuel Han-
cock. In 1849, the Sheffield Cutlers' Company
granted to Samuel Mancoek a trade mark, consist-
ing. of a horse with a man tied upon its back and
the word " Mazeppa" underneath. Mr. Hancock
died six years ago, and the trade mark, in con-
formity with the provisions of one of the Cutlers
Company's acts, became vested in his widow,
who had given her son, Jonathan Smith Hancock,
of Peacroft Works, Sheffield, permission to strike
the mark upon the cutlery manufactured by
him. The defendants had struck a mark con-
sisting of a riderless horse, with the words " Ben-
bow and Co." '6 Mui Refinado," underneath, upon
cutlery manufactured for a well-known Liverpool
house referred to as the firm of "R.S. & Co." Of
this firm Mr. Benbow is a partner, and the cutlery
was manufactured for sale in South America, where
they have an agency. It also appeared that it was
for this market the real complainant, Mr. J. S.
Hancock, chiefly manufactures. The question at
issue was, not whether the mark struck by the de-
fendant was a copy of the one used by the complain-
ant, but whether it was such an imitation as would
mislead non-trading customers in South America
where goods arc chiefly purchased with regard
to marks and not with regard to names.
For the complainant it was urged that the
mark struck by the defendants was such an
imitation of the trade mark of the complainant
as to constitute an infringement of it, within the
meaning of the act of Parliament. In proof of this
it was alleged that on complaints being made to
the defendants about the end of January, they gave
up their stamps and agreed to erase the mark from
all cutlery in their possession, and promised never
to use it again—at the same time stating that they
had not had more than 250 dozen blades so marked.
It was also stated that complainant consented to
forego proceedings on this understanding, but that
he afterwards found that the defendants had had
the mark struck on at least 500 dozen blades ; had
reason to believe that it had been used since the
complaint had been made, and that goods so marked
had been sent to Liverpool. The master cutler was
called and expressed a decided opinion that the mark
struck by the defendants, though it would not pass
for that of complainant in this country, where
names are noticed, would do so in South America
where the trade mark is the criterion of excellence.
He considered it an imitation of the complainant's
mark. For the defence, Mr. Broomhead contended
that there was no piracy, alleging that the defend-
ants especially reserved this point in agreeing not
to use it again, making such agreement solely be-
cause they did not wish even to lay themselves
open to a complaint, though an unfounded one.
Defendants, he said, had struck the mark upon
one order of goods only, and had done so at the re-
quest of the customer who gave the order, without
at all knowing that they were infringuzg any other
person's mark. He denied that defendants had
attempted to mislead complainants as to the num-
ber of blades on which the mark had been struck,
or that they had either used the mark or sent
Goods to Liverpool after the complaist was made.
He also complained that the complainant had been
guilty of a breach of faith in instituting the pre-
sent proceedings after the arrangement that had
been come to. One of the defendants further stated
that the firm specially objected to strike the mark,
and did not do so until they had reason to believe
that there was no similar one in use. He admitted
however that he might have ascertained the nature
of complainants mark by inquiry of .the Cutlers'
Company. At a suggestion of the magistrates,
after a hearing of several hours, the matter was
compromised on the terms previously agreed to,
namely, that defendant should grind out the mark
on the blades already stamped with it, and not
again use it; the Bench acquitting the defendant
of any intentional misrepresentation as to the
extent to which they had used the mark, or of
ntending to commit piracy in using it.

The annual meeting of the Liverpool and London
Fire and Life Insurance Company was held last week in
Liverpool. From the report it appears that the fire pre-
miums received in the past year amounted to £313,725, the
losses paid exceeding £225,000. In the life department
767 policies were issued, asauring £►51,914, yielding in
premiums £14,020. The amount to the credit of profit and
loss is £203,205, which includes £159,317 fire re insurance
fund brought forward from previous years, the net profit
for the year being £13,888. The dividend declared was at .
the rate of 30 per cent., absorbing. £56,213. The accumu-
lated funds appear at £1,070,924, but no detail is given in
the report with regard to them.
Several failures are stated to have occurred at
Marseilles in connexion with the recent suspensions among
the Greek firms of 11Ianchester and London.
M. Edwards, chief engineer of the Eastern Rail-
way, has just died at Paris. lie was highly distinguished
in his profession, and executed many important works.
Among other things, he took part with his father, 40 years
ago, in cons rutting the engines of Chaillot, which supplY
water to a large part of Paris, and in 1827 he suggested
the machinery now in use in the tobacco manufactory.