the premises, the said Honorable Joseph Gibb Robertson hereby indemnifies the Company against all liabilities and claims upon the Company other than (a) The bonded debt of the Company, (b) The liability of the Company for the satisfaction of which article 4 provides, and (c) Liabilities for working expenses of the Railway incurred within six months before the coming into operation of the Act;

"And further considering that said Company, represented by said provisional directors, did afterwards issue in pursuance of said agreement and deposit in defendant's hands to be disposed of under said contract, 588 Prior Lien Bonds of the par value of £100 each, and that the same have by defendant -save and except 54 of said bonds-been delivered to plaintiff or to third persons upon his order and request, the said defendant retaining eight of said bonds for intervennants under the provisions of section two of said contract as representing monies admitted to have been paid out of the earnings of the said railway on the debts or claims enumerated in the second part of said schedule, and the balance remaining of 46 bonds being now claimed by plaintiff, who alleges that he has fulfilled all the obligations devolving upon him in virtue of said contract;

"And considering further that intervenants have by their intervention represented that they, at the time of the execution of said agreement, were unaware of the position of the Company's affairs and were induced to enter into the same by misrepresentation and concealment on the part of plaintiff, and further that at that time said sums mentioned in said schedule which plaintiff undertook to settle and cause to be discharged, had been largely settled and paid out of the funds and revenues of said Company, and that after the same was made large sums of money were with the knowledge and consent of plaintiff, but unknown to them, taken from the funds of the Company and used in the payment and settlement of said debts, and that plaintiff had not fulfilled his contract so as to entitle him to the conclusions of his demand against defendant, nor furnished the proper declarations, and asks that said agreement be set

aside, that it be declared that plaintiff hath not carried out the stipulations of said agreement, that plaintiff's action be dismissed, and defendant ordered to deliver over to them the said forty-six bonds claimed by plaintiff;

"And considering that plaintiff claims that he has fulfilled all the conditions of his contract of date the 2nd April, 1887, and claims that he was entitled to the benefit of payments made out of the earnings of the Railway pending negotiations, and which he alleges were made with the knowledge and consent of intervenants, and which were ratified and sanctioned by them;

"And considering further that it appears from the evidence in this cause that on the first two items mentioned in the first part of the schedule, to wit, $50,000 Ontario Car Company estimated, which was by arrangement and transfer assigned to James Ross for $40,000 and settled at that sum, and Messrs. Ross & Company Locomotive Account $22,677, which sums plaintiff agreed to settle and cause to be discharged, there was paid out of the monies of intervenants irrespective of interest thereon from the earnings of the road prior to 14th November, 1887, when plaintiff ceased to be connected with the control and management of the road, the sum of $22,377.06, composed of $4,549.25 paid out of the revenues of the Company on the $50,000 the first item of the first part of the schedule reduced to $40,000, which latter sum was paid by James Ross for the Ontario Car Company claim and $17,827.81 paid on the item number two of said first part of said schedule, and that a considerable portion of this amount was paid out of the monies of the Company subsequent to the 14th November, 1887, and the payment thereof ante-dated in the books of the Company as though paid on said 14th November. That nearly all of the first two items of said first part of the schedule was due and unpaid at the time of the agreement of April 2nd, 1887, when plaintiff agreed to settle and obtain a discharge for the same, and the earnings of the road which were applied in payment thereof irrespective of interest, to the extent of $22,377.06 were not available to the payment of debts which plaintiff had assumed in consideration of the bonds deposited with defendant, and which

were authorized by said Act of the Legislature amending intervenant's charter, and which intervenants were not authorized to pay. That the principal sums mentioned in said two first items of part one of schedule cannot and could not in any sense be held to be current working expenses of said road, and even if so, were due at the time of said agreement, and plaintiff had and has not as between him and said intervenants, under the contract of date the 2nd April, 1887, a right to benefit by any reduction made in the capital sums therein mentioned by payments made thereon out of the earnings of the said road;

"And further considering that the amounts so paid out of the earnings of the road on said first two items of schedule, irrespective of interest, more than exceed the par value of the forty-six bonds claimed by plaintiff of defendant, and that plaintiff has not fulfilled the conditions of his contract and agreement of date the 2nd April, 1887, so as to entitle him to the possession of said forty-six bonds, and that it is established that a larger sum by $2,588.14 was paid out of the earnings of the road on the amounts mentioned in part two of said schedule than appears in the statutory declaration delivered by plaintiff to defendant, which would prevent plaintiff from receiving bonds of the value thereof from defendant, and that plaintiff has not established his right to the forty-six bonds claimed by him in his action against defendant under the contract declared upon by him;

"And considering that intervenants have proved their right to intervene to protect their interests in connection with said bonds, and that it appears that plaintiff is not entitled to ask the delivery thereof from defendant in which they, intervenants, are interested, but that intervenants have not established the nullity of the contract of date 2nd April, 1887, and further that they are not entitled to that part of the conclusions of their intervention which asks for a judgment of the Court ordering the delivery of the bonds to them;

"Doth grant the prayer of the intervention in this cause in so far, and in so far only as they ask to have it declared, that plaintiff

has not carried out the stipulations of said agreement so as to entitle him to the delivery of said bonds from defendant, and in so far as they seek the dismissal of plaintiff's action, asking a judgment to that effect;

"And this Court doth therefore declare that plaintiff hath not carried out the obligations of his contract of date 2nd April, 1887, so as to entitle him to the possession of the forty-six bonds sought by his action against defendant, and doth dismiss plaintiff's action as against defendant, and doth maintain the intervention to this extent, with costs of intervention, distraits to intervenant's attorneys." H. B. Brown, Q. C., for plaintiff. Lawrence & Morris, for defendant. Camirand, Hurd & Fraser, for intervenants. C. Fitzpatrick and A. H. Cook, counsel for intervenants.

CHANCERY DIVISION.

LONDON, April 24, 1891.
Before KEKEWICH, J.

DAVIES et al. v. LOWEN. (26 L. J. N. C.) Restraint of Trade-Divisibility of Agreement— Injunction.

The plaintiffs in this case were a firm of foreign carriers and express agents, who carried on business in London, Liverpool, and New York. The defendant on entering their service agreed that he would not within twelve calendar months after leaving them carry on or be engaged or interested, either directly or indirectly, in the cities of London, Birmingham, Liverpool, and New York, or within fifty miles thereof, either as principal, agent, clerk, or otherwise in any business similar to the business now or hereafter to be carried on by' the plaintiffs. The defendant having left the plaintiffs' service, obtained a situation in the service of a firm of carriers in London.

The plaintiffs brought an action and moved for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from breaking the above mentioned agreement.

KEKEWICH, J., said that the questions to be considered with regard to an agreement in restraint of trade were: first, whether the limitations in respect of space and time were reasonable; secondly, whether they were

reasonably required for the protection of the parties. As Birmingham was not a place where the plaintiffs carried on business, an injunction should not be granted in respect of that town. The agreement was, moreover, unreasonable so far as it prevented employment in any business hereafter to be carried on by the plaintiffs;' but the remainder of the agreement being reasonable, and there being in his lordship's opinion no difficulty in severing the bad part from the good, an injunction should be granted to restrain the defendant from being engaged in the places mentioned in the agreement, except Birmingham, in any business similar to that carried on by the plaintiffs at the time the defendant's employment by them ceased.

ENGLISH CAUSES CÉLÈBRES.

REGINA V. LAMSON.*

The name of Lamson is associated with aconitia as closely as that of Palmer is associated with strychnine. Two scoundrels before the bankrupt Bournemouth doctor had made use of this deadly poison for criminal purposes. Dr. Pritchard in 1865 had administered it to his mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor, in the form of tincture of aconite, and, as far back as 1841, an Irishman, M'Conkey, had used it as powdered aconite root. But the agent on which Dr. Pritchard principally relied, and which has gained him an infamous notoriety, was tartar emetic and M'Conkey was, fortunately, hanged without having become notorious at all. It was left for Dr. Lamson to introduce this new alkaloid to the medico-legal world.

In the month of December, 1881, Mr. Bedbrook, the head-master of Blenheim House, Wimbledon, had among his pupils a boy called Percy Malcolm John, who suffered from paralysis of the lower limbs produced by curvature of the spine, but enjoyed fair general health. One of this lad's sisters was married to Dr. George Henry Lamson, a surgeon at Bournemouth, who took a great interest in him and was in the habit of sending him medicines. On December 1, 1881, Lamson wrote to Percy John that he was coming to see him on the following evening.

He failed, however, to keep this appointment, but arrived at Blenheim House on the 3rd, with some sweets, a cake, and a box containing gelatine capsules which he told Mr Bedbrook he had brought from America for the convenience of persons that had to take nauseous medicines. He induced Mr. Bedbrook to take one of these capsules in order that he might see how easily they were swallowed. While this experiment was being made, Lamson filled another with some powdered sugar, for which be had sent on the pretext of destroying the alcohol in his wine, and turning to Percy John, who was present at the interview, said, 'You are good at taking medicines, take this.' The boy did so, and in a few minutes Lamson left, saying that he had to catch the tidal train to Paris. In about twenty minutes afterwards, the cripple lad was seized with a sudden pain which he attributed to heartburn. He was carried upstairs to bed, became gradually worse, and died in a few hours. The medical men who attended him, Dr. Berry and Dr. Little, were convinced that the symptoms were attributable to the action of some irritant poison. The postmortem appearances confirmed this view, and the chemical analysis indirectly revealed the presence of aconitia.

was

On December 8, Lamson unexpectedly returned from Paris, presented himself at Scotland Yard to inquire, as he said, into what was being done about the alleged murder of his brother-in-law, and promptly taken into custody. He was duly tried at the Central Criminal Court in March, 1882, before Mr. Justice Hawkins and a jury. Sir Farrer Herschell (then Solicitor-General), Mr. Poland and Mr. (now Mr. Justice) A. L. Smith conducted the prosecution. Mr. Montagu Williams was leading counsel for the defence. After a careful trial, Dr. Lamson was found guilty, was sentenced to death, and, after two reprieves, granted by the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) in order to enable his friends in America to produce evidence of his insanity, was very properly hanged.