Chap. XXII. except in the presence of the person to whom they are Injunctions to addressed (z). A man who has been dismissed by his employers has no right to give a notice to the Post Office, the effect of which would be to hand over to him letters, the greater part of which probably relate only to the business of his employers. In such a case the Court will, if necessary, grant a mandatory injunetion compelling the defendant to withdraw his notice, the plaintiff being put on an undertaking only to open letters addressed to the defendant at certain specified times with liberty for the defendant to be present at the opening of them (a). The prosecutors, in a trade mark case, offered no evidence against the offender and he was acquitted, he giving a letter of apology with authority to the prosecutors to make such use of it as they might think necessary. The prosecutors published this letter by advertisements and continued to do so for nearly two months. It was held that the arrangement as to the apology was not void as made under duress, and that the prosecutors could not be restrained from continuing to publish the letter (b). The Court has the power to prohibit the publication of proceedings which are pending in all cases where the interests of justice are likely to be injuriously affected by their publication (c). But it is in each case a matter for the discretion of the Court whether or not it will interfere. The Court will not restrain every report in the columns of a newspaper which may appear to be unfair in any respect (d). If, however, the case is one in which the Court feels it ought to interfere, it is no excuse that the publication may have been by defence, and in answer to similar publications by the other side, although it may excuse the party sought to be restrained from the costs (z) Stapleton v. Foreign Vineyard Association, 12 W. R. 976. (a) Hermann Loog v. Bean, 26 C. D. 306 (C. A.). (b) Fisher and Co. v. Apollinaris Co., 10 Ch. 297, (c) Anon., 2 Atk. 469, 2 Ves. 520; R. v. Clement, 4 B. & Ald. 219. (d) Brook v. Evans, 29 L. J Ch. 616. of the motion for that purpose (e). In Mackett v. Commis- Chap. XXII. sioners of Herne Bay (f), the Court restrained a minister from preaching a sermon upon a subject having reference to a pending action, and also from issuing placards announcing his intention to preach such a sermon. court. In a recent case it was held that where a petition is pending Contempt of for the compulsory winding up of a company, it is a contempt of Court to issue a circular to the shareholders of the company containing misrepresentations with intent to obtain a resolution of the company for voluntary winding up, and thereby mislead the Court as to the real view of the shareholders (g). Where the Court has decided that a case should be heard in camerâ, it is a contempt to publish an account of the proceedings. As was said by North, J., in a recent case (h) :—“It was also with great energy contended before me that all proceedings in a Court of Justice ought to be public, and that there could not be any contempt in publishing what took place in Court; but in that I do not agree. The general rule is an excellent one, that legal proceedings should be in public; and if it were departed from the great weight which legal decisions carry with them in this country would be deservedly diminished. But to this rule certain exceptions are proper and necessary. One ground of exception is, if a public hearing would have the effect of disclosing what it is the whole object of the action to keep concealed, as in Andrew v. Raeburn, 9 Ch. 522, and Mellor v. Thompson, 31 C. D. 55, or of making known to the world a secret process, as in Badische Amlin und Soda Fabrik v. Levinstein, 24 C. D. 156. The hearing in private wholly or in part of cases in which public decency and morality require it to be done are also familiar, not only in the Divorce Courts, but also in the ordinary criminal and civil Courts, an instance of the latter being Malan v. Young, 6 T. L. R. 38. So also cases relating to lunatics are constantly heard in private; and (e) Coleman v. West Hartlepool Railway Co., 8 W. R. 734. (ƒ) 24 W. R. 845. (g) Re Septimus Parsonage and Co., Ltd., (1901) 2 Ch. 424; cf. New Gold Coast Exploration Co., (h) In re Martindale, (1894) 3 Ch. 200, 201. Chap. XXII. Injunctions against committing contempt of court. Injunction Injunction against enforcing a rate. Injunction down a sign cases as to wards-see Ogle v. Brandling, 2 R. & My. 688-in order that the lunatic or ward may not be prejudiced; and I cannot conceive a clearer contempt of Court than that a party concerned, or any person, should proceed forthwith to make known to the world the very matter which the Court had deliberately, in the exercise of its discretion, decided ought not to be published." It is competent for the Court, where a contempt is threatened (i), or has been committed, to take the more lenient course of granting an injunction, instead of making an order for committal or sequestration (k). The Court has jurisdiction on a proper case being made out to restrain a solicitor who has not taken out his certificate for several years from renewing his certificate without leave of the Court (1). If a good equitable case can be made to appear, the Court will grant an injunction to restrain a local Board from enforcing a rate until the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench as to the validity of the rate has been taken, the plaintiff paying the amount of the rate into Court (m). Where a man has made out his right to an easement to against pulling fix a sign-board on the house of another, the latter will be restrained by injunction from pulling down the signboard (n). board. Alteration by lessee in the demised premises. In Bickmore v. Dimmer (o), the defendant had taken a lease of a shop for the purpose of carrying on his business of a watchmaker and jeweller. The lease contained a covenant by the lessee that he would not make or suffer to be made "any alteration" to the demised premises without the consent in writing of the lessors. The defendant, being afterwards desirous of affixing on the outside of the wall of his shop a large clock, applied to the lessors for their consent, and upon (i) Kitcat v. Sharpe, 52 L. J. Ch. 134, W. N. (1882) 183. (k) Plimpton v. Spiller, 4 C. D. 286 (C. A.); J. and P. Coats v. Chadwick, (1894) 1 Ch. 349, 350. (1) Re Whitehead, 28 C. D. 614 (C. A.); 54 L. J. Ch. 796. (m) Ashworth v. Hebden Bridge Local Board, W. N. (1877) 247; 47 L. J. Ch. 195. (n) Moody v. Struggles, 12 C. D. 261. (0) (1903) 1 Ch. 158 (C. A.). It was Chap. XXII. their refusal he fixed the clock without their consent. receiver is Where a receiver has been appointed in an action, a party Mode of prowho claims paramount to the receiver cannot bring an action ceeding when a to restrain the receiver from acting in derogation of his rights, sought to be but must apply for relief in the action in which the receiver was appointed (p). (p) Searle v. Choate, 25 C. D. 723 (C. A.). See Ex parte Day, 48 L. T. N. S. 12. restrained. CHAPTER XXIII. PRACTICE. Chap. XXIII. SECTION 1.-IN WHAT MANNER INJUNCTIONS ARE OBTAINED. THE writ of injunction under the former procedure issued pursuant to order, but under the present procedure no writ of injunction is to issue. An injunction is by judgment or order, and such judgment or order has the effect which a writ of injunction previously had (a). An injunction will not in general be granted, except after a writ of summons has issued (b). In an urgent case, however, an injunction may be granted before a writ of summons has issued (c). In such a case the affidavit should be intituled in the contemplated action (d). So also where, on account of the offices of the Court being closed, the issuing a writ of summons has been delayed, the Court may grant an injunction before a writ of summons has issued, upon the undertaking of the party applying to issue a writ of summons immediately (e). A plaintiff should endorse his writ with a claim for an injunction, when the obtaining it is a substantial object of his action (ƒ). But leave may be obtained to amend the endorsement by inserting a claim for an injunction (g). The nature of the injunction claimed should also appear from the endorsement on the writ (h). (a) Ord. L. r. 11. (b) Savory v. Dyer, Amb. 70; Mitf. Pl. 55; cf. Carter v. Fey, (1894) 2 Ch. 541 (C. A.). (c) Thorneloe v. Skoines, 16 Eq. 126. (d) See Young v. Brassey, 1 C. D. 277. (e) Carr v. Morice, ib. 125; Cam pana v. Webb, 22 W. R. 622; 4 T. R. 331. (f) Ord. III.; Colebourne v. Colebourne, 1 C. D. 690. (g) Ord. XXVIII. r. 1; Colebourne v. Colebourne, 1 C. D. 690. (h) R. S. C., App. A., Pt. 3, s. 4 ; Re Myers' Patent, 26 Sol. Jo. 371. |