BARRETT

WILKINS

will which authorises the appointment of new trustees in the case that the trustees appointed by the will shall die, or desire to be discharged, or refuse or become incapable to act ?)

That is a formal clause, to which probably the testator's attention was not particularly called; but such an unusual clause as that of ordering the trustees to pay his debts could not have been inserted without the testator's instructions.

SIR C. CRESSWELL:

The question in this case is, whether the appointment of a Mr. Blessley as executor by the will of the deceased was revoked by the second codicil thereto. It appears that by the will Edward Wilkins and Robert Blessley were appointed trustees, and to them, as such, were given powers of a very unusual character. They were also appointed executors. As trustees, they were ordered to pay the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and the legacies bequeathed by the will-duties which more usually are attached to the office of executors. Moreover, these same persons, as executors, were also authorised to satisfy any debts claimed to be owing by the deceased or his estate. It is palpable, therefore, that the deceased intended the same person to act as trustee as well as executor. In the codicil the deceased nominated Robert Tasker to be one of the trustees of his will in the place and stead of Mr. Blessley; and went further, for he gave Mr. Tasker the same powers and authorities as he had throughout his will given to and reposed in Mr. Blessley, in the same and as full and ample a manner as if the name of Mr. Tasker had been throughout his will inserted in the place of the name of Mr. Blessley. I think, therefore, the deceased meant to revoke the appointment of Mr. Blessley as executor as well as trustee. I therefore must reject this motion, but the costs of all parties may be paid out of the estate.

CHANCERY.

KNIGHT v. BULKELEY.

(5 Jurist, N. S. 817-818.)

Pension for wounds, assignment of, by way of security for payment of annuity. Power of attorney. Perpetual injunction.

THIS is a report of the hearing of a suit already reported in 114 R. R. 559 (27 L. J. Ch. 592) on motion for an injunction and for a receiver, on which occasion] the COURT granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from receiving the pension, and also from executing any power of attorney authorising or permitting any other person except the plaintiff to receive it, but refused to appoint a receiver.

Stiffe, for the plaintiff, now asked that additional relief might be granted as prayed in the last paragraph of the prayer of the bill: see 114 R. R. p. 561.

Horsey appeared for the defendant, and did not offer any opposition to the application.

Sir J. STUART, V.-C., ordered that the defendant do execute a proper power of attorney for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to receive the pension; and made the injunction perpetual against his revoking the power, or doing any act whereby the plaintiff's right to receive the pension might be prevented or intercepted; the costs to follow the order.

INGRAM v. STIFF (1).

(5 Jurist, N. S. 947-948; S. C. 33 L. T. O. S. 195.)

In October, 1857, A., being the proprietor of a weekly publication called "The London Journal," the price of which was 1d., assigned his copyright and interest therein to B. for value, and entered into a covenant with B. not to publish, either alone or in partnership with any other person, any weekly periodical of a nature similar to The London Journal." In May, 1859, A. issued an advertisement, announcing the publication by him on the 1st June following of a daily newspaper, to be called the Daily London Journal, and to be sold at 1d. B. thereupon filed his bill against A. for an injunction to restrain A. from publishing the Daily London Journal; and Sir W. P. WOOD, V.-C., made an order for an injunction. Upon appeal, Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, L. J., (dissentiente Sir G. J. TURNER, L. J.), confirmed the order for an injunction, upon B. undertaking to abide by any order the Court might make as to damages, and to bring an action against A. within one week.

THIS was an appeal by the defendant from an order of Sir W. P. WOOD, V.-C., for an injunction to restrain the defendant from printing, publishing, or selling any newspaper or other periodical under the name of the Daily London Journal, or under any other name or *style of which the words "London

(1) Borthwick v. The Evening Post (1888) 37 Ch. D. 449, 57 L. J. Ch. 406, 58 L. T. 252.

1859. March 15.

STUART,

V.-C.

[ 817 ]

[ 818 ]

1859. June 3.

KNIGHT BRUCE, TURNER, L.JJ.

[ 947 ]

[ *948 ]

INGRAM

r.

STIFF.

Journal" should form part, and from doing or committing any
act or default that might tend to lessen or diminish the sale
or circulation of the plaintiff's periodical called "The London
Journal." The following were the facts of the case: Prior
to September, 1857, the defendant was the proprietor and pub-
lisher of a well-known periodical called "The London Journal,"
which was published by him at his office, No. 334, Strand.
The publication was not a newspaper, but it contained tales
and romances, which were illustrated with wood engravings,
and a portion of each week's number was devoted to answers
to correspondents. Its circulation then amounted to nearly
500,000 per week. In September, 1857, the plaintiff Mr.
Herbert Ingram entered into an agreement for the purchase
from the defendant of the copyright in "The London Journal”
for the sum of 20,000l., and also the plant thereof from
the defendant for the further sum of 4,000l.
By the
deed of assignment, which bore date the 8th October, 1857,
the defendant covenanted that he would not, directly or
indirectly, alone or in partnership with any other person
or persons, engage himself or be concerned in bringing out
or publishing any weekly periodical of a nature similar to
"The London Journal," selling at 1d. per copy, or commit
any act or default which might tend to lessen or diminish the
sale or circulation of the said periodical, or the profit to be
derived by the plaintiff from the future printing or publishing
thereof. The assignment was duly registered at Stationers' Hall.
The plaintiff continued for some months after the date of the
deed of assignment to publish "The London Journal" in the
defendant's office, No. 334, Strand; but in April, 1858, the
plaintiff removed the publication of that periodical to premises
which he took at Nos. 140 and 141, Strand, nearly opposite to
the defendant's office. Shortly after such removal a new publica-
tion was published at No. 334, Strand, by a Mr. George Smith,
which was, in appearance, nature of contents, and style of
illustration, precisely similar to "The London Journal." The
day of publication and the price were also the same as those
of "The London Journal," and the title of the new publica-
tion was, "The Guide to Literature and Art." The plaintiff
had commenced proceedings at law in respect of "The Guide
to Literature and Art." Towards the close of the month of
May in the present year the attention of the plaintiff was called
to advertisements issued by the defendant, announcing the
publication, on the 1st June then next, of a daily newspaper,
price 1d., to be called the Daily London Journal, to be pub-
hed at No. 334, Strand, and of which the defendant was

the sole registered proprietor. The plaintiff thereupon filed the present bill, praying for an injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing the Daily London Journal. Upon the hearing of the motion, before Sir W. P. Wood, V.-C., his Honour made an order for an injunction in the terms above stated, being of opinion that it was a case of gross fraud on the part of the defendant, and on that account he refused to put the plaintiff upon any terms as to damages. The defendant now appealed from that decision. From the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff had already been frequently put to great inconvenience by the delivery at the defendant's office of letters intended for the plaintiff.

W. M. James, Q.C., and De Gex, for the appellant, contended that the two publications, "The London Journal" and the Daily London Journal, were so different in appearance that the one could never be mistaken for the other. The connexion between Mr. Smith, who published "The Guide to Literature and Art," and the defendant, had not been established.

(Sir G. J. TURNER, L. J., asked whether the defendant was willing to omit the word "London" from the title of his newspaper, and to call it simply the Daily Journal ?)

The defendant was unwilling to make any such alteration in the title of his paper.

Rolt, Q.C., and Speed, for the plaintiff, supported the order of the VICE-CHANCELLOR.

At the conclusion of the argument of the respondent's counsel, Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, L. J., asked whether, if the injunction were continued in its present form, the plaintiff would give an undertaking to abide by any order the Court might think fit to make with respect to damages, and to bring an action against the defendant as to this particular wrong within one week from that time. If the plaintiff would not give such an undertaking, no reply would be called for.

Rolt, Q.C., on behalf of the plaintiff, gave the required undertaking.

De Gex, in reply.

SIR J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, L. J.:

Considering the recent sale by the defendant to the plaintiff in the autumn of 1857, and the deed of assignment of the property to him, and the covenants contained in that deed, the selection by the defendant of this particular title for the new publication, (although it was a daily newspaper), commenced

INGRAM

r.

STIFF.

1859.

March 24, 25, 26.

WOOD, V.-C.
On Appeal.
June 9, 10.
July 21.

KNIGHT
BRUCE,
TURNER,
L.JJ.

[ 953 ]

[954]

by him on the 1st June of the present year, was made under circumstances too suspicious in their nature to render it right that this Court should dissolve the injunction granted by Sir W. P. WOOD, V.-C. At the same time the case might in one sense, and in one sense only, be open to doubt; and therefore, in my judgment, the injunction should be continued only with the undertaking which I have already mentioned.

SIR G. J. TURNER, L. J.:

As my learned brother agrees with the view of the VICECHANCELLOR, it is unnecessary for me to express my own views upon this motion, or to state my reasons in their support, further than that, for my own part, I entertain considerable doubt whether this order should be made under the circumstances before us. I may add, however, that if the defendant were to consent to alter the title of his newspaper, and call it the Daily Journal, then, speaking for myself alone, I should be very clearly of opinion that the injunction ought not to issue.

THE MAYOR, &c. OF CARDIFF, AS THE LOCAL BOARD
OF HEALTH OF THE BOROUGH, r. THE CARDIFF
WATERWORKS COMPANY.

(5 Jurist, N. S. 953–956; S. C. 7 W. R. 386, 678.)

"An Act for supplying with water the town and port of C. and the neighbourhood thereof," after reciting that "the town of C. and the neighbourhood thereof were insufficiently supplied with water," incorporated the C. Company, and gave it the usual powers, and enacted that the limits of the Act for the supply of water should comprise "the whole of the town and port of C., and the parishes and places within and adjoining to such town:" Held, that the word "port was used in its popular sense, and did not extend to the district fixed by the Commissioners of the Treasury as the port of C. for the purposes of the Customs duties.

The C. Company were proceeding to lay down pipes, which they alleged were necessary for the supply of C., but which, they admitted, they intended to use for the purpose of carrying water beyond the limits of their powers. At the suit of the board of health of C., the COURT restrained the C. Company from laying down pipes under the streets of C. for the purpose of supplying with water any parish or place not being part of the port of C., or any parish or place within or adjoining the town.

MOTION for a decree. The bill prayed that the defendants might be restrained by injunction from laying down or maintaining any additional main pipe or pipes in or under the streets of Cardiff, for the purpose of supplying with water the parishes of Leckwith, Landough, or Penarth, or any other parish or place beyond those which their Acts authorised them to supply. The point raised was as to the extent of the powers of the defendants under the Acts of Parliament by which they were constituted. By the Cardiff Waterworks Act, 1850, intituled