The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. J. 24.
CROFT V. HARRISON AND OTHERS.
' Mr. 11.00111 stated that this WILY an application from the
plaintiff, who is a tailor, for an injunction, to restrain the de-
fendants from using the name of Croft in their establishment in
the same line of business. It appeased that the plaintiff (Tho-
mas Croft) and his brother James carried on business for nye-
, ral years together until 1821, when they sold the good-will of
their trades, the defendants ; and it was agreed that the latter
should be allowed to use the names of the plaintifFand his bro-
ther for one year only ; and the plaintiff' and his brother
also entered into an agreement binding each other not to
permit.the name of either to be used after that time by the de-
fendants without their joint leave. The plaintiff, however,
discovered that the defendants were using his brother's name,
though he (the plaintiff) had never giveu his consent; and
,apprehensive that his name might he affeeted bo the cir-
culation of defendants' bills under the firth of Croft, Borne,
and Harrison, applied to the Court, for the present injunction.
Mr. SIMI'S:114110N, for the defendants, stated that they had'
paid 3,6001. for the purchase of the trade ofiemea and Thome*
Croft, then carried on in Fleet-street ; that they soon after re.,
mote to Sackville-street, having first sent a circular letter to
all the customers of the late firm, which letter was signed by
James Croft, announcing that Thomas Croft had retired front
the firm, anti soliciting a continuance of their orders to the new
partners. The business was then conducted for one year, and
then a Mr. Jonathan Croft, a brother of John and Thomas,
who had been formerly employed in the ,Coininissariat, ap-
peered, and having procured a .list of the customers of the
house, threatened to set up an establishment under the old
name, unless the defendants consented to take him into pa'rt-
nership. The defendants, however, refuted to admit him, and
he put his threat into executien, and withdrew several of their
customers, They, therefore. in , their own defence, applied to
James Croft, wko, in consideration of the large sum of money
they had paid him and his brother, and of the circumstance of
the opposition firmking set up against them consented to
their using his name in their trade alone. The defendants had
no intention of using the name of Croft in any other way, and
disclaimed 41 intention of of it to bills of exChange or ne.
gociable paper.
The. Vita CHAXCEI.I.OR said, the injunction prayed for
could not be granted, The best KrAfftio) which the-defend-
ants could have to the good-will they had purchased was the
name of the plaintiff, and hi,. brother, James Croft, in afford=
ing them that, had only done them Justice. The defendants
state that they had done nothing, aid that they meant to do
nothing.that could injure the'plaintiff, and he therefore saw no
reason why he should interfere. Application dismissed with
costs.

COY F.NT•G A RD r.,7 THEATRE.
CONST-v. HARalt.
Mr.:l-Astra moved in this cause, and ribs in " Kemble
Ilarris," to enlarge publication until the first day-of Easter
Terth• In-making the motion he- felt .boupd ul state, that it
tvas rendered ntxx.ssary by the fertile ingenty.ty pf solicitor on
the other side to that on which his client was, who bad jest
until. It
tr,gan ; ;Ina orders of the
tfrueneEltil;:tl}°laeaenddea wythocrmant which--aett:tenffir+t4;-hledua7fi 1:11it
111'4
sort now asked for had-been often obtained uteri acted upon in
that sense. An order of this itlntl had already been obtained in
the Covent-garden Theatre causv,,in,Porinance.lif which yit.
tleSsea had been examined, whose,depo•itimi, aceording to no-
tice given by the solicitor alluded e , would he taken otYthe file,
at'least the Court would tie TOOVCa for, an order fOrthat purpose,
on the ground that publication had passed, though the wit.
lames had actually been examined on the day preceding the
first day of Term. If the proceedings under that order were
irregular, it would be well for the Court to express its opinion

COURT OF /KING'S BENCH, JAN'. 24.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION'.
Mr. PARZE moved for a rale calling on a Magistrate of the
West Riding of YOrluthire, show cause why a criminal in-
formation should not be exhibited against hint. Informa-
tions were laid before hint against two persons' for sporting
without a qualification on his OWil land, which was at a comm.
derable distance from his residence. Ile summoned them be-
fore him, when they urged, by way of defence, that they were
in company with a qualified person, and reference was made on
their behalf to a case in which it was decided that persons thus
beating for game were protected. He, however, refused to at-
tend to the case, convicted them in penalties, and cornmhted
therit for default of payment. As there was no appeal given,
the patties were without remedy, unless by the interposition of
the Court.

. .
The Coun.x, after inquiring whether notice of the motion
had been given to the Magistrate, and receiving an answer in
the affirmative, granted a rule to :thew cause.'
IN 'PRE ]LATTER Or THE TRAMES TUNNEL COMPANY.
Mr. CRESWELL moved for a rule to skew cause why an
order made by Mr. Justice ,Bayley should not be rescinded.—
He applied on behalf of an original subscriber to the Thames
Tunnel Company, who had•paid his deposit, but had never
signed the contract, or concurred in the 13etition for an Act to
incorporate the body. An action had been brought against
him by the company for subsequent calls; and supposing that
he was liable, he had obtained the order in question for braying
proceedings on payment of the debt and costs, in order to
prevent further expellees. Subseouently another action had
been brought to trial at Guildhall, when the continued lia-
bility was considered so doubtful that a special case was reserved
for the opinion of the Court. The party now wished to avoid
being bound by the order which he had unadvisedly obtained,
and to procure the benefit of any decision by which he might
be held not liable ; and, for this purpose, he was ready to pay
the costs, and consent to Abide the event of the case standing
;for argument on the same principles.

The- Colin'', however, iefusea to interpose, as the party had
derived a benefit from the stay of proceedings, instead of in.
curring further costs. fie is therefore bound by the order.

(:0010E V. BANKS.

The rule fora new trial in this case, involving the liability of
Stone-buildings, Lincoln's-inn, to poor-rates, which was partly
argued in a former name,
.now came on to be further discussed,
The verdict, it will be remembered, W:IS in favour of the lia
bility of the inn ; and the rule was obtained chiefly on the
ground that a book, called The Students' Guide to Lincoln's.
inn," published by the steward, with the approbation of the
benchers, was improperly received as secondary evidence of the
contents of deeds in their possession.
The COURT now expressed an opinion that the book ought
not to have been received; as the copy produced was the se-
cond edition, which was not shown to be *sanctioned by the
benchers, and there was no evidence that the two editions were
alike. They therefore made the rule absolute for a new trial,
and directed the costa to abide the final event of the cause.

COURT OF COIIIIIION PLEAS, JAN. 24.
Tilt CounT.—The Court has undergone some alterations
since last Term, the principal of which is an vidltionatsallery,
for the accommodation of Law Students.

The four Judges Sate arr Lattco till 12 o'clock, heating mo.
tions of no public interest. The Chief Justice afterwards sate
at Nisi Prim*.

SMITH v. PIGrOIC
This was an action against the defendant for driving hiS hack-
ney-coach against a cabriolet, in which the plaintiff, who is a
barrister, residing at Chelsea, was returning home along the
Regent Circus when he was thrown out and severely injured.
The case was fully supported by the evidence, and it tardier
appeared that the defendant, or: being brought up to Bow-
street, had promised to pay the expeuces, amounting to 271.,
which the plaintiff
hadincurred while under the care of a aur.
gems for cure.—Verdict 211/.