The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(TlllB DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sitticp in Basoo.--(Befors Lord Met Justice Cockburn,
Justices Wightmau, Crompton, and Blackburn.)
Tin QUINN V. TRAIN AND mazes. -TRZ WKSTMINSTER

TRAIIWAT.
Mr. Y. Chambers, Q.C., said that since last term the pro-
secutor, who was desirous of squiescing in their lordehips'
suggestion relative to entering a nolle ui spinet the
vestry, bad applied to them to give Mr. Trak the
required three months' notice under the contract to take up
these dangerous rails, but they persistently refused to do
so, and they still, as they %Isere had done, resisted the
kw, and in • diacuasion of the matter by the vestry at their
meeting some of them had stated that it had not been de-
cided that the tramway was • nuisance, so that the prose.
cuter bad to ask the overt to hear the sank relative to the
vestry's liability when Mr. Train was again called up for
judgment.
The Lord Chief Justice asked, if Mr. Train's securities
for costs were good, why the prosecutor did not enter •
nolle prosequi against the other defendants.
Mr. Chambers said the difficulty was that if the prosecutor
let the vestry off, Mr. Train might say that he could not
meddle with the highway to take up the tramway, the high-
way being under the control of the vestry. The vestry in-
sisted that the tramway should not be removed.
The Lord Chief Justine—What is the prosecutor's object
in persevering against the vestrymen
Mr. Chambers said the prosecution was instituted by Mr.
Greg, the clerk at the peace, in his private character. He
was substantially indifferent to the costa, and what
he wanted was to secure the removal of this dan-
gerous nuisance; but with regard to the latter the
vestrymen threw every impediment in the way and held
the prosecutor at arm's length. He hod no doubt Mr.
Greg would enter • nolle prcrequi wkitt the vestrymen if
be could secure thereby the rmoval of the tramway. Every
day accidents were happenkg, and yesterday (Tuesday) •
man was thrown out of his cart and seriously injured.
The Lord Chief Justice—Have you an affidavit from Mr.
Train that he can't take up the tramway
Mr. Chambers—No. He wanted the court to be stringent
in having the tramway taken up. An offer was made to
the vestrymen last term when the role wee moved, but they
had made no approach towards the prosecutor.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that entering a nolle
Prorkeei against the vestry and bringing up Mr. Train for
judgment would be a speedy way of abating the unison's.
He could understand the desire for • local triumph over the
vestrymen, and make them eat humble pie.
Mr. Chambers said that was not the prosecutor's object.
The Lord Chief Justice said he should have thought that
if Mr. Train had power to put down the tramway he had
power to remove it.
Mr. Chambers said Mr. Train had so control over it. A
company had been established, and if he was to interfere he
would be meddling with the rails. This was • public nut.
mime, and in fact the sheriff ought to take it up.
Mr. Justice Wightman said he saw no objection to Mr.
Train's taking it up
The Lord Chief inertia" said that if a nolle prosequi was
entered the court would be prepared to assist the prosecutor
in putting dose this nuisance.
Mr. Chambers said be would communicate with his client
upon the suggestion.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sitting in Banoo.—(Beiore Lord Chid Justice Erie and
Justices Williams, Willa, and Byles.)
. WEITZ V. FITIEL.—CIIO3OI3

This matterissibUSS-severallinte7befoie the court, the
principal circumstances being these :--Some time av the
parish of Plumstend was desirous of having a burial board
and a churchyard, of which part was to be consecrated and
part not ; but when the Ecclesiastical Commissioner, were
applied to, it wu found that they had no
power to authorise the purchase of a burial ground of this
description. Subsequent proceedings were thereupon taken
to rescind the resolution which had been already
and to borrow money for an ordinary churchyard on=
3rd Geo. IV., cap. 72: but in the course of these proceed-
ings an amendment was moved that the meeting should be
held at the usual hour, and this having been negatived a poll
was demanded and refused. At this meeting it was resolved
that money should be borrowed, and the commissioners acted
upon the resolutions come to, and a rate was consequently
made. The question now raised in prohibition was whether
the proceedings were invalidated by the refusal of a poll
upon the question of adjournment.
The courtfoowldelivered judgment, saying that they thought
the parish had not legally expressed their desire to have a
churchyard, the only way in which they could do s=
by resolution in vestry, and by poll when demanded.
They were confirmed in this opinion by the view taken by
the judge of the Arches Court, and also, as they were in-
formed, by. the judge of the Consistory Court; although, in
the liecleanstical Court, it wu thought that they were
bound by the order of the Ecclesiastical Commie-
sioners, and could not look to the grounds upon which .
that order wee founded. The desire of the legally
expressed, however, Wei a condition preoedeet, without
which the order of the commissioners would be without
any force. The court thought that the order was void, and
all proceedings based upon it were void also. Their judg-
ment was, therefore, for the plaintiff in prohibition.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Keating and a Common Jury.)
ToWNE r. DANIELL.—LIBEL.
. .

The plaintiff in this case was • solicitor, in practice at
Ramage* and the defendant, the Rev. r. Daniell, was
resident in that town. In December, 1860, the plaintiff was
instructed by Messrs. Volckman, wholesale confectioners io
London, to get from the defendant • debt of 21. fe. Bd. fur
confectionery, which had been supplied upon his credit with
the view of enabling a poor parson to open a small drop, and
which debt Messrs. Volckman bad applied for several times.
The plaintiff wrote the meal letter demanding the debt mad sa.
andsubsequently issued a writ endorsed for 2/. 6s. Bd.
re= If. 16s. 2d. costs, but several unsuccessful at•
tempts were made to serve the writ ; and previous to its
being served the plaintiff sent the debt mid sa. to Mr. Towne.
Afterwards he wrote to Minors. Volekman informing
them of the payment, and saying that Mr. Towne "has not
bad the civility to send me an acknowledgement and not
being ignorant of his antecedents I have felt it best to men
you information that he has the money." This was the libel
now complained of.

Mr. kkir ward James and Mr. Prentice appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins for the defendant.
In the comma the case the plaintiff's counsel stated that
his client's only object was the vindication of his character,
and it appeared that previous to commencing proceedings be
had written asking a written apology for the expression
used in the letter, and requiring also that the apology
should be public, as it was impossible to say bow far the
malicious statement made had been carried.

Mr. Hawkins, on the other hand, characterised the action
as one brought for costs, and contended that even if they
found for the plaintiff, at all events nominal damages would
meet the justice of the case.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant..