The Express.
London, England, 1855-03-01 00:00:00

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY.

The Ulf-yearly Meeting of the proprietors was
held yesterday at the Albion Hotel, Aldengate-street ; 11r.
8.1/meow, M.P., In the chair.
The report, having been circulated several days before
the meeting, was taken as read.
The CHAINALN sad, in moving the adoption of the re-
port, he had to call attention to the statement of accounts,
which bad been circulated some days before. The receipts
for the ball-year ending December 31. 1864, amounted to
680,1291., the working expenses to 273.3691., the fixed
charges to 38,6611, the interest on bonds and preference
shares to 139.6241, leaving for division among the pro
priston 138,2811 , which was at the rats of 61. 16s. per cent.
per annum for the half year. As the entire line had been open
only two years be thought the beat entree would be to take the
two half- eats of IBM together and oompare them with those
of 1853. The receipts of 1854 showed a considerable increase
over those of 1863. In the former year the receipts amounted
to 1,050,0001.. the working expenses to 616,6961., the fixed
charges to 77,0681., the interest on bonds and orderlies.
shares to 268,744/. ; leaving a dividend at the rate of 41 per
eent..per annum, which he hoped the proprietors would
°milder very satisfactory. (Cheers.) He was quite ready
to admit that the workiog expenses of the past year were
more than he had expected they would be, amounting to very
nearly 60 per cent. The directors had called the Mee.
tion of the heeds of the. various departments to the fact
that, notwithstanding the increased per canteen of expendi-
ture in 1853, there was a still further increase is WM, theme
gapers having given them to understand, and it being •
popular doetnne, that as reeeipte increased the per center
of working expenses would decrease. The emcee was
owing to the enhanced cost of wages, iron, oil, tallow, and
other items of expense ; and it would be the duty of the
directors to watch the expenditure, and to take care at all
events that thers should be no further increase. (Hear.)
Ia the year 1853, the receipts were 869,9091., the working
expenses 388,9641., the fixed charges 77,0921., the interest en
bonds and preference shares 246,0001.; leaving a surplus of
179,3111., which gave a dividend for the year 18.53 of
31. 14s ltd., as against 41. 61. in the year which had just ter-
minated. These were the only two years between which then
could be anything like an accurate comparison of the result
of the working of the railwa7. The year 1854 gave an in-
ertias' of 181,1721 in the receipts, as compared with these of
the previous year; and, while the working expense, of that
year were 127,7321. mote than in 18.53, and while the in-
crease in the interest on bonds and preference shares
amounted to 23,0001. additional, the amount available
foe dividends wee increased by the sum of 26,2841. Ha
would net trouble the meeting with any further details, but
he hoped they would agree with him that • comparison of
the two Tan during which the whole line bad been open
presented a result which was highly satisfactory. (Bear )
Then was not much in the report which appeared to call for
remark from himself. Among the questions raised in itthat
connected with the Ambergate Railway was perhaps the most
interesting. The directors recommended the adoption of the
arrangement, because it would give the company at once
free access to the town of Nottingham, while, if the Amber-
gate line proved profitable, they would have the option of
purchasing it within ten years on terms specified. He ad-
mitted that 30 per cent. was • low figure for the working ;
but he thought the advantages of having an teens to Not-
tingham, and the right of bringing the traffic of that tows
by way of Grantham to London, were • sufficient eompen
sation. The hon. gentleman then moved the adoption of the
report.
Mr. Brume° was decidedly opposed to the bill to obtain
for the company power to build and endow a church at
Doncaster. (Hear, hear.) In that scheme the directors
were entering on the field of controversy, and engaging is
ezpenditare which could n be stepped. He bad no
objection to church extension ; but churches must not be
paid for out of the capital of the shareholders. (Cheers.)
The moment the church was built it would cease to be the
property of the company. (Hear, hear.) He should like to
know how much the directors wished to sped on the
cherub.
The CHAIRMAN—A sum not exceeding 6,0001.
Mr. Baxter) said ten times that amount might be raised
by private subscription. He objected on principle to sash
an application of the company's funds.
A 8 AAAAA OLDIR inquired whether the 6,0001. included
the endowment ?
The Citainstaw replied that it did not.
Mr. Bru.nro then moved that no money be spent by the
company on church building until the dividend amounted
to 8 par emit.
Mr. CRADDOCK seconded the motion.
In reply to a questi3e,
The CHAIRMAN said he did not know what number of
the company's workmen at Doncaster would be accommo-
dated in the church.
Mr. CARPENTER said it was one thing to appropriate
Money for religious instruction and another thing to build a
church over which they would have no control. It was
doubtful whether, after the church had been opened, they
would be able to secure accommodation in it for their own
workmen. Seven millions of the company's capital would
sot contribute in any way to the expense—three millions
would have to hear the whole burden ; and if there was any
sass of shareholders who were entitled to special considera-
tion it was those who were not g u teed, and these would
have to pay all the expense. He would move, therefore,
the omission of that part of the report which related to the
church.
Mr. litmus thought that, to meet the necessities of the
ease, 1,0001. should be appropriated for general religious
instruction throughout the line, as • substitute for build-
Inca church.
The CHAIRMAN said what the di:eaten had done in
this matter was done in consequence of a resolution passed
Jost year by • majority, after a week's notice that the
question was to be introduced; the majority amounting to
46 proprietors, 683,3151. stock, and 3,064 votes. After such
• decision the directors would not have been justified in
neglecting to take any step founded upon it.
A SHAREHOLDIR said, at a meeting of shareholders held
at York on the previous Monday a resolution was passed
protesting against the capital of the shareholders being ap.
propriated to the building and endowing of • church, and
declaring that the meeting would use every legal means in
their power to oppose such expenditure.
1 Mr. Oluisk expressed his disapproval of the terms of
ithe agreement with the Ambergate and Nottingham '
Com-
pany, and moved that section 8 in the report, relating to
that subject, should be omitted, and that • committee should
be formed of shareholders, not being directors of the Great
Northern Company or the Ambergate and Nottingham
Company, to examine the books and the list of shareholders
of the Ambergate and Nottingham Railway, and to make •
report thereon at a special meeting of .the Great Northern
Company to be called for that purpose.
1 This resolution having been seconded,
The CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the amendments. The
result was that Mr. Billing's amendment was withdrawn
without being submitted to the meeting, and that Mr.
Carpenter's amendment was carried, but afterwards with-
'drawn on a poll being called for by the minority
The Citmansw observed that if Mr. Giesler's axed.
meat were carried, he should regard it as a vote amnia%
and should retire from the direction. He then put the
Nmendment to the meeting, and it was rejected by a large

-
TEE OZRAT WILSTRRN RAILWAY CORTANY V. THE OX-
FORD, WORCRATIR, AND WoLVIERHANIPTON RAILWAY
CO ; AND, THE 0170 ND, WoliCisaTiok AND vote
RAILWAY COMPANY V. Till OILY WUTRILN
RAILWAY COY —Tall GLUON CiIIZATION.
It will be remembered that in the month of Jane last his
hewsier granted an injuaetion in the first of the above
named causes, restraining the defendants therein from up-
lifting or expending any part of their capital, or pledging
ee Wg their credit in or about the forming and coo-
pieties any further portion of the second, or up line, be-
trine Abbotswood and Oxford, on the narrow gauge, until
they should have formed not only their first, or down line,
en the broad gauge throughout the whole extent of their
line, bat should have constructed and completed the same
is all respects to the satisfaction of the engineer
for the time being of the Great Western Railway
Cienspany, or until further order, but without prejudise
as the defendants, the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton Company, completing the second or up line on the
mixed gauge between Chart bury and Church Handborough ;
the defendants by their counsel undertaking that the broad
pip on that part of the up line should be carried on, and
aseepleted at the same time with, and not after, the narrow
pugs there. The Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhamptee
Oempaey had been advised to appeal from that decree, bet
instead of so doing, they filed their bill in the second salt,
end then moved for an order to di solve toe injunction, en
the mead that sines the injunction had been issued, the
mews en which it was granted had ceased to exist. Those
reasons, as they appeared from the statement in the decree
were shortly, that, by the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton Railway Act, 1845, if that company constructed
their line with a down and up line, they were bound to do so
to the satisfaction in all respects of the engineer tor the time
being of the Great Western Company, and so that both
lines could be worked continuously with the Great Western
Railway; that they had completed or nearly completed
along their whole railway a line of broad gauge, and also of
narrow gauge, and had also commenced an up line through-
out nearly all their railway, but on the narrow gauge prin-
ciple between Wolverhampton and Abbotawood, and Ab-
botewood and Oxford, laying down the broad gauge on only
a very small portion of such line; and that the funds of the
company were not sufficient to enable them to complete
their railway with lines of both broad and narrow geese
within the time limited by an set of parliament passed fins
1852, extending their original time and powers. The fasts
which, as It was contended, rebutted these reasons were the
following. On the 31st of July, 1854, an act was passed
extending the time within which the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company were to
complete their works to the 31st of July, 1856.
I With regard to the funds of the company, it was stated that
in February, 1854, a special meeting had authorised the
I issuing of certain preference shares, very few of which were,
at the homing of the first suit, team up. But since the
granting of the injunction, the Oxford, Worcester, end
Wolverhampton Company bad, in August last, entered into
an /Agreement with Messrs. Peto and Betts, the eminent and
welfiknown engineers, to complete the works of the rail•
way within such periods, at such prices, and subject to such
directions as should be specified by the railway company
in a notice to be given by these to Merin. Peto and Betta,l
as then agreed upon; and in case of any difference there
was to be • reference to Sir William Cubitt, or, is the event ofl
Ms death or incapacity, to some other engineer of eminence.
The agreement also provided that if the company did proceed
with the work., they were to be proceeded with according
to that contract, and that the Messrs. Pew and Betts were
to perform their part of the contract when so called upon by
the said railway, receiving is payment for such performance
and work done by them the before mentioned preference
shares, at per price. By this arrangement with Messrs.
Peto, it was alleged that the funds of the company had been',
incrased to en extent far more than sufficient to sae& 11
them to complete their line in due time; and it was in -seedl
that as that time had been still further extended by the
act of 1854, and that as it wee the intention of the plain-
tiffs in the second suit to apply to parliament for another
act to release them from any difficulty and restraint they
might et present be under in the completion of their railway
(which they said they meant to complete strictly as directed
he their respective acts), they could rely upon then cir-
cumstances as grounds for dissolving the injunction.
This motion was heard in December lost, when
Mr. Bolt and Mr. 'Gesell appeared fur the Oxford, Wor-
cuter, and Wolverhampton Company; and the Solicitor-
General .sad Mr. G. L. Russell for the Great Western

Company.
The Vice-Chancellor now gave judgment on the motion
in the second suit, and after stating the facts u above-
mentioned, proceeded to say that the clause in the an of
1854, providing that no prejudice should be done to the
right of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Com-
pany, as to the mode of the construction of their
line, at first sight appeared to be contradictory
to that which previously enjoined them to complete
it on the broad gauge principle throughout ; but what
was thereby meant was, that their rights were to be no
Shriller affected that as they were altered by that act. Then
with regard to the payment of the penalty, if the railway
was not completed, as directed by the last act of 1864, one
onegeetion was that although an obligation Wel imposed
spa the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Company
to eamplete and open Unit line on the broad gauge prin-
ciple, shill, if they those so to do at their peril, they might
disregard that obligation and pay the penalty. His Honour
thought that view a meat erroneous one ; the imposition of
the penalty did not remove the urgency of the obligation--
if anything, it strengthened its force. There was just as
great an obligation upon the Oxford, Worcester, and Wol-
verhampton Railway, to finish the specified portions of
their railway within the specified times, as if there had been
the mere direction to do so without the penalty. As to the
funds of this company, it appeared, from details into which
it was unnecessary for him to enter, that the preference
shares at the time when the injunction was granted
could not be turned into money so featly as at first supposed.
The agreement with Messrs. Peto and Betts was since
entered into, and the shares to be taken by them in payment
of their work, when done, were declared at a meeting of the
company not to be redeemable till December, 1857. Beyond
this, and the addition of a small portion of broad gauge rail
on the up line, there was no new circumstances stance the
hearing of the first suit. What, then, was the effect of
these few circumstances? As to the time limited fur the
completion of the railway, his Honour found that the plain-
tiffs in the second suit were directed to finish a 'minion at
the north of their line, and another smaller portion at the
south, by the 31st of May next ; and he thought they were
bound to complete those parts accordingly ; nor would
this court, by dissolving the injunction, do any-
thing to absolve them from that obligation, or from what
tended to enforce it, on the ground that they might submit
if they chose to the penalty attached to not-performance of
their duty. Neither sou their intention of proceeding with
a bill in parliament to be listened to; for, although of course
his Honour would express no opinion as to the probability
or passibility of their success in such an application, be
could not estimate the chances of such success, but mast
take the several acts affecting this railway as he found them.
Ilia Honour thought it would, prima facie, be very absurd
to suppose that the legislature, having passed several sets
regulating this company, binding them to construct a line
that could be worked continuously with that of the Great
Western Railway, in each act imposing similar obligations,
establishing the same principles of relationship between the
two companies, and insisting at last on a double line of
broad gauge, to be completed within certain specified times,
would release this company from such obligations. It might
at first be thought, from the imposition of the specified
ebliptions and the contract with Messrs. Peto and Betts,
that this company had sufileient funds for the purposes of
their railway—bat was that so ? The contract by Messrs.
Peto and Betts was only this : that if the company chose
to all upon them to make the railway for the company,
then, upon terms to be mutually agreed upon between the
contracting parties, Messrs. Pete and Betts were to do the
work, and be paid by the taking of preference shares, at par
price. But all that, necessarily, was subject to stipulations
by Meters. Peto as to the time within which, and
the price or amount for which, they could do
the work required of them. This was evidently
so, from the reference to Sir William Cubitt, or some other
engineer, in case of a difference. The agreement by Messrs.
Peto and Betts to be paid by thus preference shares at par
pries, must be the snidest of arrangement, if, in the eye of
the public, those shares were below par. That being so,
how could it be said, the effect of that agreement was to put
this company in possession of sufficient funds to complete
their undertaking? His Honour thoughtthe matter really
stood just where it did when the injunction was granted ;
there was in reality no contract with Messrs. Peto, except so
far as it might afterwards be made one ; there was in truth
no positive agreement for the taking of these shares, but
only that they would be taken on the determination of
something net yet decided. There was, in short, no sub-
stantial alteration in the circumstances of the company
since the injunction, either u to the time or money.
Considering all the facts of the relationship between these
two companise—in reference, of course, to this particular
ease—his Honour would, independently of all other con-
siderations, require to be satisfied before he could dissolve
this injenetion, that the intention of the Oxford, Worcester,
end Wolverhampton Company to apply to parliament was a
beak fide intention on their part, and that they really
seoght the dissolution of the injunction with the view of
rally completing their railway within the proper time. So
far from that seeming to be the case, it appeared
that the very object of this application was to enable
' them to do something they were not required to
de. That, if it was not directly avowed, was so
far apparent upon the face of this case, that
a person must be wilfully blind not to see rt ; so much so,
that the evert was, in effect, asked to dissolve this Injunction
in order to enable this company, the plaintiffs in thousand
mu t, not to pon with their works. They considered it was
fur their advantage, in spite of their set, to have a eressfor
gauge railway, and to leave the broad gauge me-_idie
They thought they had aright to do that; bat Ille
did not think they had any such right or option, Eli be
wegild not dissolve the injunction upon any ma mow*
Lien. This motion, mut, therefore, and for the owns=
-- be refused, with costs.

COURT OF R 3
11:111IXOS AT 11171AINIAAL AT

TAXIIIIIOO O. PAOII,IOO.

Mr. [Montt Wilkins, Kr. Colqabolus, sad Mr. Hawkins
eppeared for the plaintiff; and the Attorney-General. Ms.
T. Jones, and Mr. Archibald »presented the defendant.
This was ea adios to mow a as of 1,40 W., brought

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 1, 1855.