Morning journal and courier., 1880-04-09

following amusing and painful illustration of
 the faults of such practice. The children
 had been accustomed to repeat the catechism
 during half an hour each day. in day school
 and Sunday school, and they were called upon 1 to write the answers to two questions. This
 is what was written: My duty toads God Is
 to bleed in him to fearin and to loaf withhold
 your arts withhold my mine withhold my sold
 and with my sernth to wirchp and to give
 thanks to put my old trast in him to call upon
 him to onner his old name and his
 world and to save him truly all the days of
 my life's end. My doosy lords my nabers
 to love him as myself to do to all men as I
 wed sthou shalt do and to me to love onner
 and suke my farther and mother to onner and
 bay the queen and all that are pet in forty
 under hsr to smit myself to all my govnes
 teaches spiritual pastures and marstsrs to
 oughtsn myself lordly and every to all my
 betters to hut nobody by would nor deed to
 bs treu in jest in all my dselins to bear no
 mails nor ated in your arts to keep my ands
 from psckin and steel my turn from evil
 speak and laying and islanders not to civet or
 desar othermans good but to learn labor
 trewly to get my owing leaving and to do my
 dooty in that state if life and to each it please
 God ts call men,"
 A decision which has good deal of inter est for the mercantile community in this country, as well as in England, has been late
 ly rendered by the English Chancery court. The principle affirmed is that one business man will not be allowed to publish advertise ments containing false statements calculated to injure the trade of another. The contro- versy had reference to certain Food for Cattle" This article was made and sold both by the plaintiffs and the defendants The latter published and extensively circulated an advertisement representing, among other things, that they were ''slone possessed of the secret for making that famous condiment" The ptaintiffs, alleging that this statement was false and damaging to their business, applied for an Injunction to suppress it. Much con hioting testimony was taken on the question whether the food mads by the plaintiffs was the same as that made by the defendants. Vice Chancellor Malins found that the two products were substantially the same, and that the representation put forth by the de- fendants was false. Then the question was, whether the advertisement was injurious to the plaintifs business On this point the Vice Chancellor had no doubt. 'If the 1 defendants in this case," he said, ''are a. liberty to say that they alone are l of the secret, what is the l of that? It is telling the world that l thsre Is only one place at which this food for | cattle can be obtained; if you go to that | place, you go to those who alone possess the | secret for making is; but if you go anywhere else you cannot have the real thing because no one else knows how to make it you get only spurious thing" Evidence was given by the plaintiffs to show that their goods had actually been returned by persons who had ieved that they had been imposed upon in buying from the plaintiffs. But the court held that if tks advertisement was calculated to injure, it wss not necessary to show that actual damage had been sustained. After citing number of authorities in support of he doctrine that ''where ore rnan publishes ;hat which is injurious to another in his trade 1 or business, that publication is actionable, and being aetionable, will bs stayed by injunc- ion, the Vice Chancellor said, 'Upon prin- ,iple, cannot entertain shadow of doubt hat vhsre trader is conducting an unfair node of trading, representing that his article s the only genuine one, from which it follows hat all others are spurious, that is so calcu- ated to injure the business of another that this ,ourt, seeing it is wrong which ought not to be .epssted, will prevent it by injunction" The injunction was accordingly granted.