Star.
London, England, 1827-11-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CRANCPRT. Nov. rt.
WARREN V. LAittliTtz.
Mr. Stromitr moved that the injancion
some dints ago by Mr. Warren, the blacking-1
the Strand, against the clefeentanr, should be
The plaintiff had stated in Ms affidavits, that
no person of his name in the defendant's firm,
me of such a name was obviously for the purpose
injbring him in the sale of his blacking, by passing
a spurious article on the public as of his compositiesi
The affidavits stated also, that the labels on 1,
and the jars themselves, were so neatly imitated
defendant, as to be mistaken, without a close
Mr. HORNS interrupted Mr. Sugden, by
him that this was the appeal daf, and requestini
to postpone his motion.
Mr. SUGDEK regretted the urgency of the
$0 great that he could not attend to his
session.
Mr. HORNS complained that the notice had
abort.

Mr. SUGDEN replied, that it was as long
was compelled by the practice of the Court
the plaintiff could not expect more from him
manner in which the injunction had been obta;ned.
then went on to state the substance of the
affidavits, which was, that so long ago as the
one Jonathan Warren, an uncle of the plaint
discovered a valuable method of making I
ing, which he manufactured and sold for
at Hungerford-stairs, near the Strand, aL
house in which he lived was timbered or .
Number 30. He had painted upon this house,
large characters, " Warren's Blacking, No. '
ibis inscription remained-there until within •
mod of the present time, when the plaintjt
bad prevailed upon the owner of the house
Obliterated. I• the year 1821 Jonathan W
!mkt had continued to carry on the trade of
flanker up to the time of his death, in part,
'a Mr. Wood. After the death of Jonathan
Mr: Wood made proposals to the defendant '
join hm as a partner, which he did, and they
'IS carry on business together. The elder W;
bis partner, as well at the defendant who I
bad always used labels and jars in some
ambling those of the plaintiff; because
blacking resembled' one another. They
their blacking " Warren% Blacking," as
emitted they had a right to do, after the
person who bad discovered it, and he
Lordship's decision this day would gie;
right of continuing to do so. He cot
the attempts which the plaintiff had
rein the defendant by means of letters an
menu in the public papers, threatening their
with bills in Chancery, and all the other
nahies ot.the law, for doing that which they ,
to do, viz. to deal with the defendants for
This had succeeded to so great an extent
'rely :minus loss to the defendant ; for althoug
could be more ridiculous than the plaintiff
people who waned to buy blacking would
it at places where they would not he rnolelte,
Pendant complained that he was reduced '
of ruin by the means which the 'plaintiff
to for the purpose of preventing the sale
facture. He therefore hoped that the Lord
would forthwith dissolve this injunction,
such a manner, as would shew the plat: ti
right to attack a competitor in the manner he
Mr. WAKEFIELD was heard on the same
Mr. HORNE, for the plaintiff, contended t
fondant's conduct was such as did not eat
the proteCtion of a Court of Justice. fir
enured, and it could not be denied, to ma,
manufactured by himself pass off with the
one which was manufactured by the plaintiC
copied the plantiff's bills and labels so near
an unpractised eye no difference appeared; 7
he had inserted his own place of residence,
so in characters that could hardly be seen.
statement about the uncle and Hungerford
clearly unfounded. The place to which he
not contain 30 houses, so there could be no
there. The way in which ‘' Warren's Blac:
Strand," was introduced into the label, tout
other purpose than to imitate that sold and t
plaintiff.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had
asked, whether any person of the name of
connected with the defendant when he had
injunction? and he was assured there was •
all referents to him was a fiction. This
be untrue.

Mr. I.l3aux slid he had been dead several
that it was true no connexion existed between
the defendant.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked it•stab ,
to mate and sell blacking, and .to viriteor
W.irreo% Blacking," had he not a. right ti
Mr. Holum said that case was' diferetu
which was one of palpable imitation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it appeased

at Hungerford stairs.
Mr. HORMIL-But not at " No. 30, Strand.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that whm
Jonathan Warren had, the defendant derived
and he might, in order to keep up the
goods, make allusion to the former place
nufacture, notwithstanding he had remov,
part of the town.

Mr. HORNE believed, if it had been ea
this motion would be made to-day, an any,
have been given to the defendant's case.
alleged partner of the defendant, was at
engaged in a suit with him, in which- he
right to make this blacking. Them could
of the unfairness• of the defendant's intent
sooner had the plaintiff changed the colon,
cards, than the defendant imitated the alter

The Lotto CHANCELLOR said that the
rested for six or seven years without attemi
blish the right which he now contended foi
ship also reprehended in strong terms the
which the affidavit alluded to events which
many years ago,-by such expressions as "
"some time since." At the same time there
doubt that the defendant had attempted an
of the plaintiff's placards, for so much werithey
that without a close examination the difference
not be detected. For this, however, the plaintiff,
had any remedy at all, would find it at
tardiuess in bringing forwird his claim iris
tisfactory to his Lordship'simind, that there
cessity for the interference of• the COHII.
therefore dissolve the injunction, but, considering
defendant's conduct, he would do so without
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Novistass
THE BOROUGH OF DEVIZES.
The ATTORNEY GENRRAL appeared to
against a rule obtained by Mr. Campbell on
day for an information, in the nature of a qv