The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-04 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

TIIE INCONVENIENCE OF SIMILAR NAMEg.-A singular
case of some importance has occupied the Master of the
Rolls lately. It was a suit instituted by the well-known
firm of Messrs. Day, Son, and Hewitt, of London, cattle-
medicine manufacturers and sellers, against the defendant,
John Henry Day, who also carries on the same business
with equal reputation at Stafford, to obtain an injunction
restraining the defendant from selling medicines under the
designation of "J. 11. Day and Sons," or "Day and
Sons," or with any representation that the medicines
sold by the defendant are made by the plaintiffs or are
identical therewith. The dispute which resulted in this
suit is, in fact, between rival manufacturers of similar
articles, and the contest has been none the less bitter
because the plaintiff, Thomas Day, and the defendant
are brothers. So long ago as 1834 the plaintiff com-
menced and carried on his business, and the defendant
was with him for a few years, but not as a partner.
The defendant, however, left the plaintiff's employ,
and, about 1845, began a similar business on his
own account. It was established by evidence that he en-
gaged discharged agents or travellers of his brother, and
sold his medicines in the districts and to the customers
amongst which the plaintiff 's trade lay. Thence arose
complaints, recriminations, angry handbills, and n.utual
misrepresentations and misstatements. Each asserted that
the other stole his customers, and that his own was the
original business and firm, which the other imita' el.
Lord Romilly said that if he granted an injunction on one
side, he would have to do the same on the other. Mistakes
would have arisen under any circumstances. The bill
ought never to have been filed, and he should dismiss it.
As, however, some of the defendant's statements had
been unwarrantable, he should make no order as to costs.

THE ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL BANK.—In the matter of
this bank, which is now in liquidation, the question has
come before Vice-Chancellor Wood, whether an advance
of £4OO made by a shareholder to the bank at a time when

it was in difficulties could be credited to him as so
much mo ley paid on account of the amount remain-
ing unpaid upon his shares, for which a call has since
been made ; in other words, whether this payment
could be taken as made in anticipation of calls not at the
time made, or was a simple loan to the company, entitling
the person making it to rank as a creditor, but not to a
deduction pro tan to from the amount due upon his shares.
The bank being in difficulties a meeting was called, at
which it was agreed that each shareholder should pay £3
per share, to be returned if the bank weathered the finan-
cial crisis. Mr. Barge, a holder of 200 shares, paid at the
rate of £2 per share, with a large number of others. The
bank, however, collapsed, and Mr. Barge now wished to
be declared a creditor. On it appearing that Mr. Barge
had paid the money while yet there was a petition before
the court for winding up the bank, his Honour dismissed
Mr. Barge's petition.

THE MURDER BY BURGLARS AT BIRMINGHAM.—At
Warwick Assizes on Tuesday three men, named
Thomas Marlow, hawker ; William Beesley, general
dealer ; and Louis Bee, alias Grayson, were in-
dicted for the wilful murder of Mary Milbourne, at Bir-
mingham, on the 21st January last. Miss Milbourne, it
seems, was an elderly singlelady, and lived in one of her own
houses, in Heneage-street, Birmingham. She was understood
to be possessed of money, and to keep a considerable sum
in the house. The prisoners entered into an arrangement
with a man not- in custody to rob the deceased. As a preli-
minary step Tee's wife went to Miss Milbourne, pro-
fessedly to take one of her houses, and ascertained that she
did not keep any servant. About four o'clock on the 21st
January, the prisoners, the man not in custody, and the
approver John Mack, proceeded to the house of Miss
Milbourne, who was from home at the time. Mack kept
watch in the street whilst the three men were engaged
ransacking the house. When the deceased returned the
man not in custody seized her by the throat, on the top of
the cellar head, and strangled her. They made their
escape, meeting the same night at a house in Lawley-street.
There they shared the money, which only amounted to
£B. Subsequently the prisoners were apprehended,
on information given to the police by Mack. The prisoners
were shewn by independent eidence to have been in
Heneage-street at the time the murder was committed ;
and a Mrs. Crutchley deposed to Bee's wife having made
inquiries of her respecting Miss Milbourne a short time
before the murder; whilst on the afternoon it was perpe-
trated a woman came and engaged her in conversation at
the street door. The jury, after twenty minutes' con-
sultation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty-.

THE LEICESTER ELECTION.— At the Leicester Assivs,
nefore Mr. Baron Bramwell, the case of Freeman v. Taylor
has been tried. It was an action for assault arising out of
a quarrel that took place between the plaintiff and de-
fendant just prior to the recent election for South Leicester-
shire. The plaintiff's story was, that they were both of
them supporters of Mr. Paget, and were going home from
a public-house in Leicester about half-past one in the morn-
ing just before the election. 'While talking about the
approaching struggle, the defendant said that Paget
would win by a majority of 200 votes. The plaintiff
replied, " You talk like a fool and an idiot. Upon that
the defendant struck him with a stick, the plaintiff re-
taliated with his fist, and then the defendant used his stick
again with so much violence as to cause severe injury to
the plaintiff, for which he now brought his action. The
defence was, that the first blow was struck by the plaintiff.
The jury, piter a short absence, found a verdict for the
plaintiff ; damages, £lO. His lordship refused to certify
for costs.

GREAT WATCH ROBBERIES.—The four men so cleverly
captured by the police just at the moment they had re-
ceived a consignment of stolen watches from Liverpool,
were tried on Tuesday, at the Central Criminal Court,
on an indictment relating to the robbery of nineteen
watches, &c., and there were four other indict-
ments of a similar nature. All this plunder was the
result of robberies from the person, and not, as
might have been supposed, the produce of a wholesale
operation at some watchmaker's establishment. It was
clearly proved that one of the prisoners, named Rogers, sent
off the box of watches from Liverpool, and the others,
Byatt, Irvine, and Johnson received them in London.
Rogers was sentenced to five and Byatt to ten years' penal
servitude, and the others to two years' hard labour each.

MTGHENDEN.—The generally quiet village of
Hughenden was all alive on Saturday last, the bells of
Hughenden Church ringing a merry peal by direction of
Messrs. Coates and Hussey, the churchwardens, to cele-
brate the kissing of hands of their respected squ're, the
Right Her. B. I is 4,1 i, on his appoi .tment as Premier of
Roza n d.