New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-06-23

The Cow. alluded - va7i0u, point, of tle case
a.I ,'.'iiici oy saying % 3, evident Dalntir mis-
topA i-ie nature Of tic action and remedy. oIgE,
60 nave oecG brought for false Imprisonment IT,
stead oi uniting DO the Klt Co ana it- agents %
should in'e been brought or those alone who We're
ii-'s ---..- rs me cise ,iil-, -ret 81 i'''te las
ueclcole, a..i Tie defendants age entitled ID d acw
. t.a-costs to abide event.
Pc'cr Coates and of.crs against Gs7rys
o. nfH NE sane against D7 n 3lfes-lls ,.on t)r
-u' luciOL restraining ccfcui ants from using trlIe
marks IL puttn-up spool cotton. BE- comes mp oI
an sIpeai from an Cr1er Of Judge SANFORD Tle
PAN 's lf i11rtif-c Ircr~ ot thread cotton % '1t-
.ane a.o -erd portion Of thcl sooi, here. De-
ien-al. b, lot a mar factrrfr Ci NE same Alni ot
goccs tHi merchant. and rlOclres the g0oiS -o oa
mauuialilr and so. them on his own account.
The allegation that he has been g,ilty OF making
fraudulent limitations az the goods manufactured by
plaintiff and that me limitations are such as are Gale
OK icd to deceive and rla iu lc numerous persons
nao purchased Who were mis.ad oy these marks Is
beng lLe GOODS = p.Hlntlh. spec mems of the goods
have been Lara 1eiore MS, ami We have examined
tlen ln connection win The affidavit. We consider
j. extremely doubtful whether HcF carry with them
evidence cd designed ana fraudulent imitation. 10 j.
ioi 10 De 1cued ont they bear similarity n re>ein-
blance brt unless evidence had been shown thai
persons had been deceived we should no; have sup
posed they nearly rescmblcl a> 20 De calculated
to deceive where ordinary precaUton had been used.
There Is evidence that some purchasers had been
mlscd but We doubt they have not been 50 0y the
similarity o names rather han by those marks An
mJncuon ought never 80 iT granted no first unless
the plaintiff has an exclusive right to the trade mark,
and the limitation Is SUCH as is necessarily calculated
% deceive These are 80 ilr 30 doubt at present -
20 render TIE injunction PRAYED for improper Order
dssolvng temporary Injunction confirmed. with
costs.
There were some other decisions on demurrer. &c.
Court Of Common Pleas FRIDAY, June 20.
SPECIAL TENN
Before Judge Woodruff
EfiSh0 RUClWOH against Ge0rgc WHteS
Compliant on SUIT for LIBEL for paragraph m the
P0bce Gazette, IN the report of a. the Special
Sessions Damages land at $4,000 The paragraph
SAID that W.. Barrett. counsel IN the case offered 90
show that Mr. r had been guilty of certain immoral
acts. namt,. vi the testimony was not allowed The
present ls % Motion by plaintiff % strike ont portions
OF The answer. one OF which is that defense VIII show
that Mr. Barrett offered 20 prove certain matters
90 character. and the reporter was informed that The
intention of The cOunSe. was 20 try and prove what
was stated IN the report hc actually ohcrei 0 prove
and that the reporter vas not actuaied by malice
@c-anotncr pilt Is rs 10 the character OF plaintiff.
&c First pa+~famci % the answer struck ont. n
being different trom the alleged libel Motion not
granted "a, 20 Of her parts
MqVhcr Rore al SWt Of William MV'ock.
Mr. 4. retained Mr. ", an attorney and counsel. IN
ls4- to cG' ret note and defend l action for slam
der. 4 witness stated that Nr r. met han IN the
street and wished HIM to 60 with Mr. K. 90 Nj Is
office, Mr. T. speaking OF suits NOT progressing. He
dii so. Mr. Il. asked Nr VI tO 60 on with the suits
MIN. SCENE 10 get na as>On.aud said. Take your
pdpcrSaWay audd what YOU please with them" After
something more sand Nr. X. took the papers and
brought ihCsu away with him.
The suits at that time were uncomp'eted and still
M Court Mc~>r> Brady and Maurice. by written
consent of Sir. Nulock. were then retained oy Mr. r.
o. 90 ou with them instead of Mr. VI. Nr suisse
Quently brought am action to recover of Mr. r. taxed
costs on TIC suits and about $50 counsel fees. IN all
$500 The Judge who tired The case charged the
jury that where AN attorney WlthdraWS from suit
he has right 90 his taxed costs far the suit has
proeres ed but not 10 counsel fee The Jury gave
verdict for Mr.. VI of 5l5, The present motion Is on
the part of Mr.. r for new trial ON the ground that
attorney has no right To withdraw from "a suit tl
Is completed. and that the taxed costs were mpro
perry allowed.
The Court held that an attorney might not be juStl-
fed IN Withdrawing from sult so near the time OF
tual As TO prevent substitute being ObaneI but he
has rgit 10 do 50 al any time on reasonable notice
and receive ms taxed costs IN the suits 20 that time
The client cannot substitute an attorney without
leave of the Court Tins Is done TO protect the al
tOmey. and prevent substitution without payment
the fees yet the client is AT berty0 stop the suits
when he plea>eS The charge of the Judge was cor
rect. New trial denied.
Amer LQrton ag't. Joseph Bruen.-De-
PENDANT held to be IN contempt for violating the IN
junction. by selling 1Our and crackers 10 the amount
of 500 Ordered that he pay "a me of 500, and 10
costs, and If default II made IN payment be COM
a;ts3 till paid &C.