The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-24 00:00:00

not ray, you don't take notice of it on the instant?
Witness—That is so, sir. I don't know an ex-
policeman named Knight.

Inspecter Griffin—That person has nothing at all
o do with the case.

Lyttleton---I am about to cross-examine the wit-
ness, and before I do so I wish to know whether
there are any Irish detectives present.
Inspector Griffin—There are none that I know of.
Lyttleton—Very well. Non, then, Mr. Seale,
you know me, don't you?—Yes. _

And on the Sunday did not the detective, James
Boutell, come in and join our company ?—Y es, he

Do you recollect Boutell going out of the house
and on his return finding Richardson, O'Leary,
and APCarthy closeted together ?—No, I do not.
Don't you recollect giving Boatel' some change
on the Sunday morning as due to him for stand-
ing' treat on the previous Saturday night?

I do. I alsa recollect that there was a person
there that night who denounced Boutell as a Fenian,
and your putting him out of the house for it.

In answer to further questions from Lyttleton,
the witness said—l did not see Boutell and O'Leary
in a private conversation ; they were talking to-
gether, but not whispering. Ido not recollect your
leaving the parlour before Boutell and the others
were out ; you all came out together.
Lyttleton—You are a flippant perjurer.
Mr. Maude—You must not use such expressions.
Lyttleton—l can't command my feelings, but I
say that man is a flippant perjurer. Will you, sir,
swear on your solemn oath, that you did not know
what Mr. James Boutell was about ?

Witness—That I will swear. lam quite inno-
cent of what was going on in my house, or I would
not have allowed it, I can assure you. I will also
swear I did not hear Boutell say to you " Maurice,
I know it was the drink that made you denounce
me as a detective."

Re-examined by Mr. Wontner—l know nothing
more about Boutell than I do about any of my
other customers. Before I went to the parlour
door on the Sunday afternoon I had previously
sent the potman, and from what he told me I went
myself. lam quite sure when the men returned at
five o'clock M'Carthy was with them, and I will
take my oath I knew nothing about what was going
on in my house.

At this point the further examination was post-
poned until Friday next.

Lyttletou—l wish your worship would send us to
llorsemonger-lane Gaol; Maidstone is very incon-
venient to us.

Mr. Maude—l have no power to do that.
The prisoners were then removed.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

VICTORIA CLUB BETTING—This DAY.

GRAND NATIONAL STEEPLECHASE.
20 to 1 agst Fan (taken)
20 to 1 agst Shakspere (taken)
25 to 1 cost Tennyson (taken freely)
25 to 1 agst Pearl Diver (taken)
25 to 1 agst Clansman (taken)
1000 to 30 agst ilelen (taken)
1000 to 30 agst Gnowstorm (taken)
1000 to 30 agst Plover (offered)
40 to 1 agst Globule (taken and off.)
50 to 1 agst Reporter (taken)
1000 to 20 agst lleanwood (offered)
1000 to 10 agst Flyfisher(offered)

150 to 25 taken about tho following six :—Fan, Tenny-
son, Port Royal, Pearl Diver, Globule, and Shako spear.

CHESTER CUP.
25 to lon the field (offered)
40 to 1 agst Viridis (taken and offered)
DERBY.
1000 to 70 agst Pace (offered-1000 to GO taken)
1000 to 15 agst Sunflower colt (taken)
The appearance of the weights caused a little specula-
tion, the principal race being the Grand National, for
which several horses were backed. The quotations will
show the business done.

RACING FI XT
FEBR

URES FOR 1868.
,UA.RY.

Lincoln Spring
11insdeld
IL.rrow 2O

Nottingham Spring 25
Derby Spring

AP.
Bromley Spring.
Durham
Hendon l3
Newmarket Craven
Knighton l4
Abergavenny . ... 16

iIL.

Chester 5
Wi.chcster
York Spring
Doncaster Spring
Salisbury

Catterick Bridge l6
Lewes Spring
T hirsk
Curragh April 2l
Newmarket Ist Spring 27

West Drayton 1
Croydon 2d Summer 3
Manchester 3
Ascot Summer 9
Beverley, Hull, and
East Riding lO
Windsor Summer

Bath
Croydon Ist Summer 21
Harpenden
Epsom Summer

NE.
Nowton
Hampton
Newcastle 23
Bibury Club 23
I Stockbridge
1 Alexandra Park 3O

LONDON GAZETTE.-THIS EVENING,

ADMIRALTY, JAN. 21.
The following promotions have this day been made :
To be Engineers in her Majesty's Fleet—Mr. William
Jeffrey Grant, with seniority of 23d December, 1867 ; Mr.
John Richard Ecroyd, with seniority of 30th December,
1867. To be First Class Assistant Engineers in Her Ma-
jesty's Fleet—Mr. William Abel Moyso Vivyan, with
seniority of 30th December, 1867 ; Mr. Charles R. James,
with seniority of 30th December, 1867.
FOREIGN-OFFICE, JAN. 21.
The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. Theo-
phile Chrestien as Consul for Rangoon and British Bur-
ruab, and of Mr. William Arbuthnot as Consul for Madras
and the Presidency thereof, for his Majesty the King of
Sweden and Norway.

IMPORTANT TRADE-11.IARIC CASE IN CHAN-
CERY.—(Before Vice-Chancellor Spragge.)—Davis v.
Kennedy.—The plaintiffs in this case are the well-known
firm of Perry, Davis, and Son, of Providence, 8.. 1.,
U.S. of America, and of 17, Southampton Row, Holborn,
London (W. C.), and the action was brought at the May,
1867, term of the Court of Chancery in Hamilton, Canada
West, to restrain the defendant, a resident of Hamilton
fzom the use of their trade-mark, " Pain Killer." The
hearing occupied the Court two days, and the Vice-Chan-
cellor, after withholding his decision till September 3d,
1867, then gave it in favour of the plaintiffs, granting a
perpetual injunction against the defendant, and ordering
him to pay to the plaintiffs all the profits ho had made by
the use of their trade-mark, and all the costs of the suit
ac. The following extracts from the judgment will suffi-
ciently explain the case and show the justice of the
learned Vice-Chancellor's decision :—" The defendant
contends that what the plaintiffs call a trade mark is not
properly a trade mark, but a term of description of the
article which he prepares. Ido not agree in this. It is
a quaint combination of words never probably used
together before, forming a name by which the inventor
desired his preparation should be made known, and cal-
culated (as he rightly judged) from its quaintness to fix
itself in the memory of the general public. I come
now to the principal question in the cause—namely
whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiffs' trade-
mark. He has been for several years the manufacturer and
vendor of a preparation to which he ascribes many of the
virtues which are claimed for the plaintiffs, and to which he
has given the designation 'Pain Killer.' If
.he had used
the designation alone it would be a flagrant infinagemendt
of the plaintiffs' right. But it is contendedlthhatdthf enwhnorvas
are so used as not to mislead.pur.chasers..lt
as
ainrttihclee
trisasdpsowkeitnuoinf bthyedlrausgtg.filysetsyienaHrsa.
Hamilton
IT
ho defendanta flrcste
kn‘soawyns
yheeamrsadbesfiot
before. It
iltowcaasl
o.paperbscrie'enlyD kusnodvarsnsuonmtiel
articlethe latter
had date;
obtained b but even at
st tih;euatralt:ieorn dateand tah ev plaintiffs'sry
large
sale under the name of Pain Killer, sometimes with and
sometimes without the prefix of the name of the maker.
Differences aro pointed out between the appearances of the
bottles and the labels in which respectively the article of
the plaintiffs and that of the defendant are sold. To the
eye there is an obvious difference when the two are seen
together, and they are not called by the same name, the
plaintiffs' article being called Perry Davis'sVhesgeGtarbealet
Pain Killer,' while the defendant's is called ' T
Home Remedy, Kennedy's Pain Killer.'
.rhe grievance of
the compitlalni,nhetcee
sis,s a
judgmentroyf t cooug r
os
concludes
t,
rt 01
tel uh s
te
ht ofhe u c
sat
case
e word Pain
o"nlthheave l
wn
of
t
rtkos,p whichl
titsr ncoalsve
swiesl
the un ddeirffis tcouol
tdy.
leyli
0 nl
thoughtKil lt"
applica-
tion. I
rad trade-fmiat
refer to the language of Lord Cranworth in Farina v.
Silverlock it is peculiarly apposite to the case before .
The practice of appropriating the trade marks f others
has bean reprobated by various judges, and I have no
doubt that Lord Cranworth used the word 'steal' to mark
his sense of its gross impropriety. Iu Collins Company
v. Cowan, Sir W. Page Wood took occasion to characterise
It in language not more severe than just. I cannot
conceive,' he said, ' of anything short of indictable
offences more discreditiblo than this course of procoediug.'
The plaintiffs aro entitled to au injunction ou the torus
prayed for by their bill, tutd to an account as prayed. The
decree will bo with costs."—lVicekdy Spectator,. Hamilton
October 9, 1867.