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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

WESTMINSTER HALL-EXCHEQUER, 17th Apri

WHITE v. SHARP:

This was an action of debt on an award which was tried
before Mr. Baron Rolfe, at the last Liverpool Assizes,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the full
amount awarded, with leave for the defendant to move to
enter a nonsuit on the ground, that although two out of
the three arbitrators had by the terms of the submission
power to make the award, yet the authority had not been
followed, as the award professed in the body to be the
award of three, ani was in fact signed by two only, the
third arbitrator having refused to sign it.
Mr. Cowling moved for a rule nisi accordingly, and sub-
mitted that the award was an imperfect award of the three
arbitrators, and he relied on the case of Thomas v. Har-
rep, 1 Sim and Stu. 524 as an authority exactly in point.
He also cited Watson's book on awards, page 107.
By the Court.—That case appears to have been but
loosely reported, and possibly there had been no notice
to the third referee; at any rate we do not see any suffi-
cient reason for granting a rule ; the award does not pur-
port to be the award of the three ; it does indeed purport
to have been originally intended to be the award of all
three ; but it purports to be the award only of those who
actually signed it.—Rule refused.

OLD COMPANY CARTERS.

CAMPBELL V. POWNALL.

This was an action in the gachequer, and tried at the
last Liverpool assizes, when a 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 distinguishing title. The
company, as a body, do not pay Mr. Pownall, nor do the
company find office, hooks, 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
for a 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 litter 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 f,r 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. Erle 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 gultY• 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 Chuhb 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
same, fraudulently impressed upon divers locks divers
marks, in imitation of the marks of the plaintiffs, and
sold the same locks with the same marks, whereby the
trade and reputation of the plaintiffs were damaged.
Mr. E. Wright, attorney for the plaintiffs, raid 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 fur 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 fur 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, is 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. Ile 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. 111 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 hearing 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 manufacturers, against any spurious imitations of
their goods. lie (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 plaintifis 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.

h
icos
length,t
opinion
evnnidnh
iaasontmnadt'
01:
said d d d
not
belong
The newly-appointed Chief Baron of the Exchequer,
Sir Frederick Pollock, is in his 62nd year. His lordship
is the brother of Mr. Commissioner 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 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-
deeds. The point really was, whether a subsequent table mortgages which they bad taken by deposit of title
judg-
ment creditor who had taken possession of Lis debtor's
lands under a writ of execution technically styled an ele:git
took them discharged of a prior equitable mortgage by a
which first brought the point before the pub-
that that judge did not there intend to give
deposit of deeds without any legal conveyance, or subject
C
delivered his judgment at considerable
to it. His Honour, after alluding to the dictum of Lord
it,that he did act deny that the tenant by
rightfulri(moitgitironl
tatteinhl
racenwssjfttuudildnlg:meltlaacanxl take
to his debtor was taking
bt
(th :t which belonged to the debtor) ; but to say that by
property
erica:el
etv
orhthfoyal
tefdi
dispute
ines.ipeet.gls ttieat
satisfactiont
ifeioeirta
ge that(:ouifni
rtheei:ds, which
which in equity
that the equitable mortgagee vvfis entitled to hold the
creditor.