"green," and consequently the court would
not protect the friend of Howqua. "There has
been," said Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, "such a
degree of representation, which I take to be
false, held out to the public about the mode of
procuring and making up the plaintiff's mixture,
that in my opinion a court of equity ought not
to interfere to protect the plaintiff, until the
plaintiff has established his title at law."

Let us take another case, in which the court
looked with a like suspicion upon the hands of
the suitor:

An individual, having invented a species of
grease for the hair, sold it to a tradesman, whom
we will call Figaro, and who, in turn, sold it to
the public as "Figaro's Medicated Mexican
Balm:" adding the following eloquent, though
purely imaginary, statement of its properties
and origin:

"By special appointment. Medicated Mexican
Balm, for restoring, nourishing, and beautifying
the hair. It is a highly concentrated extract
from vegetable balsamic productions of that
highly interesting, but little known, country,
Mexico, and possesses mild astringent properties,
which give tone to weak and impoverished hair,"
&c. &c.; concluding with a statement that this
admirable composition is made from an original
recipe of the learned J. E. Von Blumenbach, and
recently presented to the proprietor by a very
near relation of that illustrious physiologist!

Another "Medicated Mexican Balm" having
appeared in the London horizon, the friend of
the near relation of the illustrious Blumenbach
applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction
to restrain his rival from selling it. The
court, however, looking suspiciously at the
petitioner's hands, recommended the matter to be
tried by an action at law. The action never
came off.

Let us not be understood to imply that
the British merchant is always to be found
in a chronic state of uncleaniness, and thus
unable to obtain the protection of her Majesty's
High Court of Chancery. There are numberless
instances in which the court has be
friended him. Here is an example: An
enterprising individual, named Day, having
entered into partnership with a person who
providentially bore the name of Martin, took advantage
of this coincidence to commence a blacking
manufactory at No. 90½, Holborn-hill. They
advertised their blacking, in labels exactly similar
to those used by the well-known firm of Day
and Martin, and were doubtless prodigiously
astonished when any deluded citizen applied to
them under the supposition that he was getting
his goods from the old-established house.

On an application to the Court of Chancery
however, from the original Day and Martin, an
injunction was granted to restrain the new firm
from selling "any composition or blacking
described as purporting to be blacking manufactured
by Day and Martin, in bottles having
affixed thereto labels representing the blacking
sold to be the same as that made by the original
and well-known firm of that name." In coming
to this decision, Lord Langdale stated that
"there was quite sufficient to mislead the
ordinary run of persons, and induce them to go to
the wrong shop."

It will be gathered from the words of Lord
Langdale above quoted, that the coincidence of
name alone did not influence the court in their
decision, and the following case bears out the
assumption:

Burgess père and Burgess fils once upon a
time unhappily quarrelled, and the son
commenced business in opposition to the father,
Burgess père having gained some little notoriety
as the manufacturer of "Burgess's Essence of
Anchovies," the young man advertised to the
public that he could furnish them with Burgess's
Essence of Anchovies also, although the condiment
was of his own manufacture. Burgess
senior applied to the court for protection, but
without avail: "All the Queen's subjects," said
the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, in answer to
the appeal of the indignant father, "have a right,
if they will, to manufacture pickles and sauces,
and not the less so that their father have done
so before them. All the Queen's subjects," he
continued, "have a right to sell them in their
own name, and not the less so that they bear
the same name as their father, and nothing else
has been done in that which is the question
before us."

The fact is, that before the court will interfere,
the case of the petitioner must not only
be free from suspicion, but there must appear
an evident attempt to mislead the public. Now
the ingenious individual in the following case
did attempt to mislead the public, and the court
put a stop to his 'buses and proceedings
accordingly.

The London Conveyance Company were in
the habit of advertising that title upon their
ombibuses. The person above referred to, who
was also a 'bus proprietor, thought fit to adorn
his  'buses with the following ambiguous
inscription on the back: "London Conveyance" (an
indisputable assertion); on the panels of the side,
"Original Conveyance for Company." Through
some typographical mismanagement of the
painter, no doubt, the word "for" was scarcely
discernible by the public. The court, as we
have said, summarily ordered the  'buses off the
road, or, at the least, requested that their panels
should bear some less ambiguous legend.

So, again, in the following extract from the
Reports, although there appeared no actual
appropriation of name, the court were of opinion
that the public were not fairly dealt with: A
patent medicine having been sold as "Frank's
Specific Solution," a rival trader advertised a
similar medicine which he called "Chemical
Solution." Not content with this, however, he
attached to his advertisement a testimonial in
favour of Frank's Specific Solution. The plan
was highly ingenious, but did not meet with the
approbation of the Master of the Rolls.

"If anybody," said that learned functionary,
"critically reads the advertisement of the
defendant" (this was the gentleman who sold the