The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

CAMPBELL V. POWNALL.

This was an action in the Exchequer, and tried at the
last Liverpool assizes, when h verdict was, under the di-
rection of Mr. Justice Coltman, found for the de-
fendant.

The facts are shortly these : Mr. Pownall is the agent
of a number of waterside carters, whose accounts he makes
out and collects, and keeps separate accounts with each
individual, and for his trouble he charges to each a com-
mission of 5 per cent. on the amount he collects. These
persons are called the Old Company. They are not a
trading company, and neither buy nor sell—the name the
" Old Company" is merely a dlstineuishing title. The
company, as a body, do not pay Mr. Pownall, nor do the
company find office, books, or stationary, nor in any
manner deal with the cash, but all is done by Mr. Pownall.
When, however, a carter in the company has the mis-
fortune to meet a loss Whilst performing his business,
Mr. Pownall deducts from the account of each individual
in the company, under the head of " Profit and Loss," a
per centage to cover this loss, and this the learned judge
at the trial thought formed a partnership, whereupon the
defendant had a verdict; but the court above appear to
entertain a different opinion, and have granted a rule nisi
fora new trial.

If Mr. Justice Coltman's decision is good, Mr. Camp
bell must sue every carter in the company.

THE WILL FORGERIES CASE.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-MONDAY.

At ten o'clock Mr. Baron Gurney, Mr. Justice Wil-
liams, and Mr. Justice Maule, took their seats in the
Court, and on Barber, Fletcher, and Mrs. Dorey, being
placed in the dock, the latter fainted away, and it was
some time before she recovered. The Attorney-General
was not in attendance, but was represented by Mr. Earle,
Q.C., with whom were Messrs. Clarkson and Bodkin.
Mr. Baron Gurney proceeded to sum up. Having ex-
plained the nature of the indictment and given an outline
of the transaction, which the evidence for the prosecution
went to shew the prisoners had been connected with, he
proceeded to remark on the main features of the case.

At the conclusion of the Learned Judge's charge, the
jury retired to deliberate on the verdict. After an absence
of a quarter of an hour, they returned into court with a
verdict of " Not Guilty" against William Henry Barber,
and " Guilty" against Joshua Fletcher and , Georgiana
Dorey.

The next of the will forgery cases was taken on Tuesday
morning. On that day, Wm. Henry Barber, Joshua
Fletcher, Wm. Saunders, Lydia Saunders, and Georgiana
Dorey, were indicted for having feloniously aided and
abetted a certain evil-disposed person, whose name was
unknown, feloniously to forge, on the 16th of March,
1843, a certain testamentary writing, purporting to be the
last will and testament of Anne Slack, with intent to de-
fraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of Eng-
land, and also the Commissioners for the Reduction of
the National Debt. Mr. Erie conducted the case instead
of the Attorney-General. The case against the prisoners
concluded on Wednesday. On Thursday, Mrs. Dorey
obtained leave to withdraw her plea and plead guilty. At
the instance of Mr. Justice Williams the Jury pronounced
William Saunders not guilty; Mr. Wilkins addressed the
Court for Barber, Mr. Greaves for Fletcher, and Mr.
Stone for Mrs. Saunders. The case lasted until Friday,
when the jury found all the prisoners guilty• Barber, on
being pronounced guilty, said emphatically, " My lord,
I am not guilty, and Mr. Fletcher knows it•"

SHERIFF'S COURT, BIRMINGHAM.

WEDNESDAY.

ACTION FOR FORGING PATENT MARKS.

In this case Charles Chubb and John Chubb were the
plaintiffs, and Thomas Davis was the defendant. The
declaration charged that the plaintiffs were manufacturers
of locks, and in the habit of using as an impression upon
locks of their manufacture, certain marks, namely,
" Chubb's Patent," " Chubb's Improved," or some like
words, in order to show that such locks were the make of
the plaintiffs, and to distinguish the same from the locks
of other persons ; and that the defendant, knowing the
some. fraudulently impressed upon divers locks divers
marks, in imitation of the marks of the plaintiffs, and
sold the same locks w ith the same marks, whereby the
trade and reputation of the plaintiffs were damaged.
Mr. E. Wright, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the
present was an exceedingly important case, not only to
the plaintiffs themselves, but also to the public at large.
The plaintiffs—as the jury, from the mention of names,
would most probably know—were highly respectable lock
manufacturers, carrying on business in St. Paul's Church-
yard, London. The plaintiffs were celebrated in trade,
not only for the general excellence of the articles manu-
factured by them, but for the celebrity and utility of many
of their inventions. They had carried on their business
many years, and for many of their inventions had obtained
patents, and had enjoyed the advantages of those patents
for the respective terms for which they were granted.
They had been in the habit, for a great number of years,
of using, as the jury would be already aware from the
declaration, certain marks and stamps upon articles which
they sold. The defendant was charged with forging those
marks. The conduct with which the defendant was
charged, was not only highly dishonourable, but injurious.
It was, in fact, part of a system, which had gone on to a
considerable extent; and, in some cases, often endanger.
ing and threatening a very large portion of the trade of
the country. Manufacturers on the continent had been
in the habit of putting marks upon goods, intimating
thereby that they were British manufactures. These
goods had been sent into foreign markets, had turned out
to be worthless and spurious imitations, and thereby the
trade of this nation itself had been to a very considerable
degree prejudiced. The conduct of the defendant was
only part of the same system. The particular circum-
stances which gave rise to the present complaint were as
follow :—Mr. Rowlinson, a respectable solicitor, whose
offices were in New-street, some twelve months ago had
his office broken open and entered. He thereupon took
means for the additional security and safety of his premi-
ses, and among other things ordered a carpenter to procure
for him two of Chubb's locks, to be placed upon his doors.
The defendant was applied to, as a locksmith, residing
near Aston-street, for two locks, and he furnished the two
locks then produced, bearing the marks in imitation of
the plaintiffs', and which were accordingly put on Mr.
Rowlinson's door. In the course of a few months they
became entirely out of order. A communication then
took place with Messrs. Chubb, by which the fraud was
detected. As an aggravation, perhaps, of the defendant's
conduct, it so happened that he put the carpenter, who
ordered the locks foom him, into the Court of Requests
for the money ; but the commissioners, on tearing the
case, were so satisfied of the fraud having been committed
by him, that they refused to make an order for payment.
The plaintiffs only required- fair and honest protection in
their trade, and to that they were entitled. Some years
ago they discovered that their marks were being pirated,
and proceedings in Chancery had been adopted against
several individuals. The plaintiffs had been at the trouble
expense of issuing handbills, cautioning the public and
also the manufactuters, against any spurious imitations of
their goods. Ile (Mr. W.) would be able to prove that
one of these handbills came to the knowledge of the de-
fendant himself, and that afterwards he was guilty of the
conduct imputed to him, with a full knowledge of all
these circumstances. He (Mr. W.) did not ask for any
vindictive damages; although it was quite impossible to
estimate the extent of damage the plaintiffs had sustained ;
but he did hope and trust that the result of their verdict
would be such as to prevent a repetition of the offence by
any other person who might be disposed to act as the de-
fendant had done.

Mr. Rowlinson, solicitor,. Mr. Hunter, agent for the
plaintiffs, the carpenter who ordered the locks from the
defendant, and Mr. Lowe, of the firm of Messrs. Mapple-
beck and Lowe, proved the case as stated by Mr. Wright ;
after which the under sheriff summed up the evidence,
and the jury returned a verdict of £5O damages.

The newly-appointed Chief Baron of the Exchequer,
Sir Frederick Pollock, is in his 62nd year. His lordship
is the brother of Mr. Cothrnissioner Pollock of the In-
solvent Debtors' Court, and of General Pollock. He
was called to the bar in 1807, and after twenty years'
practice was appointed a King's counsel.

EQUITABLE MORTGAGES AND JUDGMENT CREDI-
TORS. —IMPORTANT DECISION. -The —The Vice-Chancellor
of England delivered his judgment in the case Whitworth
v. Gaugain, last week.
The case has raised considerable
apprehension among bankers, on account of the uncer-
tainty in which the mooting the question left all the equi-
table mortgages which they had taken by deposit of title
deeds. The point really was, whether a subsequent judg-
ment creditor who had taken possession of his debtor's
lands under a writ of execution technically styled an elegit
took them discharged of a prior equitable mortgage by a
deposit of deeds without any legal conveyance, or subject
to it. His Honour, after alluding to the dictum of Lord
which first brought the point before the pub-
lic,9iat that judge did not there intend to give
delivered his judgment at considerable
length,iCi°;t otaepnnidnbiaasontnnnadt' i oisiangi said that 1., hat he did not deny that the tenant by
e/egit had an estate in that which he might lawfully take
the e!egit he acquired a rightful interest in land
ho, fin equity did not belong to his debtor was taking
(tint which belonged to the debtor) ; but to say that by
dispute for granted. The court mnst declare
ihweleequitable mortgagee was entitled to bold the
ftwoh 1 rieci
that I
cew
property for satisfaction of his debt prior to the judgment
creditor.

April 23, 1841

teTt
establishment
mPeAn
forCtßheaße
Societies," has been drawn up and introduced into the
Legislature by Mr. Cowper and Mr. Hutt, the member!
for Hereford and Gateshead. It contains 20 clauses, and
PAWN ;in
dS orcegz EnTl
attEi
nsn.
ofA
Charitablebi bill top ro
Paidvl
enacts that societies may be formed for raising among the
members thereof a stock, or fund, for the purpose of 111_
vancing money on property taken in pledge or pawn, the
rate of interest not to exceed 5 per cent. per annum. The
operation of the bill is extended to Great Britain, B 5:,
wick, and the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and Man. sssi
Sir Frederick Pollock was yesterday week sworn inn
Sergeant-at-Law,. and having proceeded to the Common
Pleas, and gone through the usual ceremonies theree!
sergeant, returned to the Lord Chancellor's room, au
was sworn in as Lord Chief Baron, the Queen's Remelt'
brancer having administered the oath of office, and the
Clerk of the Crown the oath of allegiance, &c. The
Lord Chief Baron did not take his seat in the Court of
Exchequer during the day. The Court of Common
Pleas was crowded on Sir F. Po lock's entrance ; and il
the course of his progress through the courts, the learned
gentleman received the congratulations of his Mends.
CHARGES IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.—A farther
reduction has been made in the taxation of "suitors in the
Court of Chancery. By a recent order, which redone(
by one-fifth the charges for copies in the office of toe
Clerks of Records and Writs, the charge to the suite;
was diminished by more than £5,000 a year. Anothl
order has been issued, in consequence, as we believe; °
the compensation of the present Lord Abinger having
ceased upon his accession to the peerage, by which the
charge for office copies in the Examiners'-office of the
Court of Chancery has been reduced from 14d. per forte
(of 9U words) to Bd. per folio, making a further dimion"
tion of charge to suitors to an amount exceeding £l,looa
year. Thus, io less than 18 months after the passing of
the " Act for the Abolition of certain offices in the High',
Court of Chancery in England," reductions of fees have
been effected to the extent of nearly £6,200 a year.
A HINT TO MAGISTRATES.—At the late assizes for the
county of Chester, Mr. Baron Maule made the following
decision, as furnished by a barrister to toe Chester Cow
rant—" The learned judge laid down the law, and cited
the case Rex v. Drew, and said he had so ruled in several
cases on the South Wales circuit, that a statement made
by a prisoner before the magistrate is inadmissible in evi-
dence at the trial, when the caution by the magistrate to
the prisoner before he makes the statement is as follows:
—• Whatever you say will be taken down in writing, and
used against you at the trial;' or, 'will be used for or
against you at the trial ;' or, tent be used at the trial.
He said that the caution should be as follows What-
ever you say will be taken down in writing, and may be
used against you at the trial ;' or, ' may t,e used for or •
against you ;' or, ` may be used at the trial.' The princi-
ple of the rule is, that when the words of tl.e caution
amount to a 'positive promise' that the statement will be
used at the trial, the promise is an inducement to the pri-
soner to make the statement; and that, therefore, it is
not voluntary, which it ought to be, to make it admissi-
ble at the trial.