The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

_
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 13.
ADAMS, ADMINISTRATOR, V. GARRARD.
This was an action for work and labour done by the
'lusband of the plaintiff. It was tried at the sitting:
ifter last term before Lord Abinger, when a verdict way
found for the plaintiff, damages 3901.
Mr. CRESSWELL now moved for a rule nisi to redue
-he verdict. The facts of the case. were these. A corn-
lany, of which the defendant made one, was formed tc,
vork a marble quarry at Limerick, and the deceased.
vho was the proprietor of. a wharf in London, was en-
;aged by them as their agent at a salary of 300/. It way
also sought to recover upwards of 1001. for wharfage,
'O/. 10s. of which was alleged to have been paid te
Vyatt, Packer, and Co., while the evidence showed that
he money was paid, not in full, but at the rate of 10s.
)er pound, and that also not by the deceased but by tht-
Ldministratrix. That-sum h''proposed to strike cut.
dso submitted that the evidence given with respect to
.he engagement of the deceased did not show more than
diat he was an agent to be paid by a commission on what
le might sell.

Lord
ABINGER—I was satisfied on that point, and
think the verdict ought to stand. You may take a rule
with respect to the 701. 10s. You will have another ac-
,ion brought for it.—Rule granted. •

-- V. THE AGRICULTURAL BANK Or IRELAND.
Mr. KELLY moved for a rule to set aside a judgment
obtained in this cause, and to let in a defence. The ac-
rion was brought against a person named Hughes, who
vas the public officer of the above bank. It appeared
chat they carried on business till June, 1840 ; having no
rands, a general meeting was palled in October, when the
Company was dissolved. There had been many transactions
)etween the Bank and the St. George's Steam Packet
Company, and there were some gentlemen who held
shares in both concerns, and, of course, they were cog-
nizant of the affairs of both. After the bank had stop-
ped payment, a person named Hodgson, who was the
Agent of the bank, was induced to sign a promissory-
aote for 5001., which was passed to the Steam Packet
Company, and by them kept till it vNis due, when an
action was immediately brought upon it against Hughes,
who had lotig ceased to be the public officer ; in fact, the
bank had been dissolved long before that, and that mo-
ment he lost the character of its public officer. How-
ever, it appeared that that gentleman had come over to
England for the purpose of accepting process in the
pause, and judgment was allowed to go by default. A
wire facies was issued against two gentlemen who had
Jeen partners in the bank, but who were wholly igno-
rant of the note, or of any of the proceedings which they
low sought to set aside, and to have liberty to defend the
action.

Lord ABINGER—What was the date of the dissolution
of the Banking Company.
Mr. KELLY—The 19th October, 1840, and the note is
lated in December following.
Lord ABINGER—The matter requires explanation.
There is something like collusion here. You may take
t rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 13.
CRAWSHAY V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS.
This action, it will be remembered, was tried at the Lon-
lon sittings after last term, before the Lord Chief Justice,
,nd was brought by Mr. Crawshay, the ironmaster,
gainst the defendants, Alderman Thompson and Messrs.
Areman, his partners, on the ground that they had im-
properly marked their iron with the letters " W. 0." in
an oval, in order that it might be taken in the Turkey
market for the iron of Mr. Crawshay, which bore the
mark of " W. C." in an oval.
The evidence showed that the two marks, although dis-
tinguishable, might be mistaken the one for the other ;
that Mr. Crawshay had been in the habit of so marking
his iron for a number of years ; that his iron was known
at Constantinople by that mark, and highly estimated ;
that Alderman Thompson had used the mark " W. 0."
it the request of a house at Constantinople, which, at
the same time, begged that the letters might be perfectly
listinct.
The Jury, the case having occupied the Court nearly
three entire days, found a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA now moved for:a rule to show cause
shy that verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground of misdirection, and of its being
against evidence. His Lordship had left two questions
to the Jury—first, whether they were satisfied that there
was in the defendant's mark such a close resemblance
the plaintiff's mark as in its own nature was mien-
ated to mislead the unwary, and injure the sale of the
plaintiff's goods. If it was not a mark to impose on
those who had some little skill in the commodity, and
.vould take ordinary care, then the plaintiff could not
recover ; and, secondly, what was the intention of the
lefendant in using the mark complained of ? Was it
for the purpose supplanting the plaintiff, or done in
the regular course of trade, and in the execution of foreign
orders sent to their house? Because it seemed to him that,
unless there was such a fraudulent intention existing,
And proved to their satisfaction, the defendants would
not be liable. He (Mr. Sergeant Shea). submitted that
the question was improperly left, as on this declaration
it was not necessary to prove that the defendants had
used the mark with the intention and for the purpose of
supplanting the plaintiff, and passing off their iron for
the plaintiff's iron ; but that the substantial part of the
allegation was made out if it was proved that the defen-
dants, having received orders to mark their iron in away
so nearly resembling the plairitiff's mark that they knew
it was calculated to pass off for the iron known in the
Turkish market as (W.C.) the plaintiff's. That was wt-
ticient, whatever the motive was, and the intention of
supplanting the plaintiff was not material to the question.
His Lordship also omitted to read the notes which had
passed between the parties, and in which Alderman Thom-
pson was informed of the injury the close resemblance to
the plaintiff's mark was doing to the plaintiff. That no 7
tice was a most material point, for after it had been given,
Alderman Thompson had persisted in using the mark.
The Lord Chief Justice had certainly told the Jury that
a man who used the identical mark after notice was lia-
ble ; but whether the fact of a man persisting to use a
mark that he had used innocently was actionable, was a
question for after consideration. He (Mr. Sergeant
Shea) submitted that, in point of law, there was no, dis-
tinction between a fac-simile and so close a resemblance
as was calculated to deceive. The same reason that ren-
dered it unlawful to use a fac -simile made it unlawful
to use a mark that was calculated to deceive.
The LORD CHIEF JdSTICE thought it must be as-
sumed here that this mark was calculated to deceive,
otherwise the defendants were not bound to obey a notice
that the mark they were using might deceive the plain-
tiff s customers. The questions were, was the mark cal-
culated to deceive, and was the act done fraudulently ?
Mr. Sergeant SHEA further observed that the Jury
wished to give a qualified verdict, but that the Solicitor-
General had objected to their stating their reasons, and
his Lordship said he 'could not have them without the
consent of both parties ; whereupon the Solicitor-Gene-
ral said that he did not wish them given, and the verdict
was taken for the defendants generally. Now, the very
objects the Lord Chancellor had in view, in directing this
question to be tried, had by that course been frustrated.
If the reasons of the Jury had been given, the view they
had taken of the matter would at once have been seen,
and the object 9f the inquiry satisfactorily answered.
. The Learned Judges having consulted together for a
short time,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the question was one
of great complication and importance, and the rule should
be granted on all the points, in order that the matter
might be fully discussed.—Rule granted accordingly.
IHTL3IER AND ANOTHER V. CILLMAN.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict which had been found for the
plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
The cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the
Middlesex sittings after last term, and was brought by
the plaintiffs to recover a sum of money for work and
labour done, as Parliamentary agents, in carrying a
Bill through the House of Lords for improving the cit
of Norwich. The Learned Counsel moved on the groun
of mikktection.—The Court granted the rule.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Sin. 13.
IJV TUE VE*NON.
iThuArernon, an East Indiaman, of 1,000 tons burden,
iliVit,lysixty hands on board, on her voyage from London
Id 4 !Calcutta, came into collision with a brig, the
Alien; a. foreigner, of 200 tons, from Nantes to
reliiistiansand, in Norway,. on the 13th of 'August
at half-past ten P.m., 0(1 Dungeness. The brig was
en a starboard tack, and the Vernon on a larboard.
They struck—the brig's rigging and her cutwater were
damaged ; she floated for about two hours, her crew
were saved, and she sunk. These facts were admitted on
either side, and they only were admitted. Every other
point was Disputed, and whatever was alleged on the one
side was Stoutly denied on the other. " The wind was S.
by E.," says the brig's crew. " No, it was S. by half W.,"
answer the Vernon's men. " The night was very dark,"
again says the.brig. "No 1 objects were visib:e at adis-
tance," replies one of the Vernon's witnesses • and the
-
shade between " very" dark and "rather"dark was
strongly insisted upon by Counsel. The master of the brig
says to the master of he Vernon—" You ought_ not to I
have put your helm down ;" and he rejoins, " on had
the wind free, and you should have kept your course. If
you had not luffed,and crossed our bows, we should have
passed free." ..And thus, on every question of fact and
of navigation, there was difference of opinion mid con-
tradiction of evidence. The Vernon had a pilot on board,
:Ind the legal point as to his liability instead of her
owners; necessarily awaited the decision of the Court,
and of Captain Stanley Clerk and Captain Ellerby, two
brothers of the Trinity House, by whom it was assisted,
as to the liability of either of them.
Dr. LUSHINGTON left to the Trinity Masters the follow-
ing questions:—" Was the Alsen or was the Vernon to
blame ? If the latter was, was the pilot she had on board
in fault, or were her officers and crew alone in fault, or
did they share the wrongful act between them ?"
The Trinity Masters held that no blame attached to
the Alsen; that the Vernon was alone in fault; and that
that fault must be exclusively attributed to her pilot, in
sing his orders.
The legal point was reserved. It turns on the jurisdic-
ion of the Trinity House to grant licences to pilots

-----
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 13.
George de Vipont, an elderly man, was opposed by
Mr. Cooke on the part of Messrs. Carlisle.
This 'case was before the Court on several occasions,
and formed a striking example of the much " hard
swearing," as it is termed, committed in this Court.
The opposition was for a collusive arrest, which it was
positively sworn had not taken place.
It appeared that the insolvent, who had been a hosier
at Clifton, near Bristol, had been taken in execution at
the suit of a person named George Palmer, for an alleged
debt of 71. 15s. Palmer, who is a smith and dealer in
marine stores, in Long-alley, Moorfields, was to-day
examined respecting the debt, which he swore was owing,
and he produced an account-book, He denied, on his
oath, that he had seenthe insolvent in ,Whitecross Prison
since the 3d instant.. He likewise denied that he was
with the insolvent yesterday,