House Of Lords, March 1. LAW REPORT. The noble and learned lords present this morning wer6 the LoBD CnANCELLn,oIord P-ZAhcE2LOrd EAFrURRSY, and Lord GOBDON. CUNDY ANI) ANOTHER V. IMDSAY AND) OTHERS. This was an appeal from a decision of the Court of Ap- peal, reversing a judgment of the Queen's Bencb Division ordering judgment to be entered for Messrs. Cundy, the de- fendants. The Solicitor-General, Mr. Benjamin, Q.C., and Mr. B. Francis Williams appeared for tlhe appellants ; 3kir. Alfred Willis, Q.C., and Mr. -. W. M'Leod Fullarton for the respondents. The action was lrought by Lindsay and Co., who are linen manufacturers at Belfast, against CuLdy and Co., who trade under the style of Deut,Allcroft, and Co.,for the conversion of 2:50 dozen bandkerchiefs. The action was brought in 1874, and at the trial before 3Mr. Justice BLIack- burn it appeared that in 1873 one Alfred BlenLarn hired a thirdaionr at 37, Wood-street, and 5, Little Love-lane, Cheapside, there being it well-Imown firm of William Blenrldron and Sons, who had carried on business for maiy years at 123, Wood-street. Towards the end of 18j3 Blenikarn wrote letters to the plaintiffs signed somewhat ambiguously, so that it resembled " Blenkiron and Co." One member of the plaintiff's firm had k Down the firm of Blenidron and Co. several years before and k-new that they 'were respectable, and on the faith that the order csme from that f3rm the goods were sent; the invoices being headed " hNessrs. Blenkiron and Co., London, bought of Robert Lindsay and Co." The fraud was afterwards dis- covered, and in April, 1874, hilenkarn was convicted of ob- taining the goods by false pretences. In the Tmeantiuue tlhe defendants, Messrs. Cundy, had bought of lBlenlrarn the 250 dozen of cambric handkerchiefs in question, and had resold them to different persons before the fraud was dis- covered. The jury found that the defendants were bo,,d fide purchasers of the goods,and that the goods formed part of the parcels forwarded by the plaintiffs to Blenkkarn. The learned Judge reserved the question for the Court whether on the facts and findiugs the action was maintainable, and the Queen's Bench Division held that it could not be main- tained, upon the ground that there was a sale of dhe hand- kerchiefs by the plaintiffs to Ilealairn which could not be set aside as against the dlefendants, wbo were bond fide purchasers from Blenkarn, without notice of his fraud. The (ourt of Appeal, in reversing the decision of the QueenL's Bench Division, held that in the circumstances of the case the property in question had never vested in Benkarn,andthat, therefore, in law he was unable to confer a good title to it to the defendants. At the concusion of the argumernts, their LoaDsnres reserved judgment. _ H31OUSE OF LORDS, N-AIwE 1