The Express.
London, England, 1864-05-05 00:00:00

COURT OF QUXXN'S BENCH.-MAY 4.

Sittinp in Banco.--(Bsfore Lord Chid Justice Coekteus,
Justices Blackburn, Y.Bor, and Shea.)
THE QUEER r. RUMBLZ.—THE RLPPAHANNOCZ.

The Kidd/eon grand jury name into court this afternoon
about • quarter part 2 o'clock, having first heard the evi-
dence adduced on the part of the crown, on an indictment
charging the defendant with a violation of the ForerepF4l:
liniment Act in the equipment and fitting out the
harmonic, by engaging men to man her on behalf of the Con-
federate Matte of America. _ _ .

Mr. Morton, the Queen's tramcar and attorney, add:wring
the jury, said—Gentlemen of the jury, you have found a
true bill against William Rumble for a misdemeanour!

The Foreman—We have.
Mr. Justice Blackburn mid, there being se other Wai-
ner before them, they were discharged, with the thanks of
the country for their service., which, ea that occasicro,
had been much more therms and important than they gam-
rally were before the grand juries of the Court of Quota's
Beach at Westminster.
The grand jury was thee discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-MAT t

Sittinp is Basoo.—(Botoro Lord Mid Jostles Eris, sod
Justices Wills; Arles, sod Keating.)
COON V. TER CRAZING-CROSS RAILWAY CONPART.-I.N.
PORTANT QUINITION AR TO RAILWAY cournosAno);
. . .. •..

Theequestion involved in this mei was owe of considerable
importance to railway sompaatea, and also to persons having
property in the neighbourhood of railway works. The cir-
cumstances were them :—The plaintiff was a baker sad
conies:timber, in Dukeutreet, Adolph*, his ahoy being in the
line of thoroughfare which led from the Strand acmes
Hungerford-market to Whitehall, and during the cou-
structiou of the Charing-aces station the thoroughfare
was Huugerford-market was stopped. Whop the work
was completed the thoroughfare was continued ander the
station. The plaintiff claimed compeneatioe upon the
ground that his Waikato had been seriously injured by the
traffic having been stopped, and called upon the company to
issue their warrant to have the amount of com-
pensation assessed. The company declined to do
this, and the present action was comequently
brought to recover 200/., at which plaintiff estimated his
lom when be seat in his claim. At the trial before the
Lord Chief Justice a verdiot was entered for the plaintiff,
subject to the opinion of the full court upon two questions
of law. Afterwards, Mr. Lush, on behalf of the company,
obtained a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why a consult should sot be entered, because the plaintiff
hod no claim wader the Lands Climes Consolidation Act,
as the statute only gave a tide to rocupeaastion where
lands were injuriously affected. There was another point
in reference to the form of the notice. The statute maid
that the claimant, in his notion to thecompany. should state
the nature of his interest ; and the prentint_plaintiff had in
his notice stated that he was the. " occupier, whilst in fact
be had • lees for 21 yearn. This description of the interest,
it was contended, was sot a compliance with the statute.
Mr. Giffsrd sad Mr. Maclachlan to-day appeared to show
WWI against the rule fora aonsuit being made absolute;
and Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Shield supported it.
Mr. Maclachlan, in the course of an able argument, re-
ferred to the case of " Senior v. the Itetropolitaa Railway
Company" to show that lose of trade, even where the pre-
mises themselves might not have been touched, gave ground
for compensation. Last week also another case had been
decided in the Queen's Hooch upon the same ground. The
priori* was that loss of trade was loss of goodwill, and
this affected the value of the property. He Woo contended
that the notice was sufficient.

Mr. Loch that the Court of Exchequer, in de.
riding the case of " Senior v. the Metropolitan Railway
Company," had acted upon a misconception of the deans
of the Exchequer Chamber in Chamberlain's we.
The Lord Chief Justice mid that this court would not
feel themselves justified in action contrary decision to the
of thelmhequer Court in the case of "Senior T. The Metro-
I Polite. Railway Compaoy," and therefore their judgment
upon that point must be against the company, who ought
go to • Court of Error if they wished to overrule the
decision in the Court of Exchequer.
Mr. Lash then referred to the Lads Clauses Casaba.
lion dot, and argued that the notice was bed.
The Lord Chief Justice wee of opinion that the rule for
a sonenit mast be discharged. The first questa; brought
before the court by the railway company was • very sub-
stantial one ; sod it was to Ise hoped that the tribunal
which would hereafter have to decide it would lay
down and define the boundary within which • party
claiming damages in consequence of the construc-
tion of a railway must limit his claim. It had
been already decided by the Exchequer Chamber
that if the party were so thjared that be could maintain an
action at law against the railway company for stopping up a
public thoroughfare, he might also claim compensation in
this form ; but Mr. Lush bad contended that in the present
case what was complained of was more a personal injury
than an injury to real property. The court decided against
Mr. Lush upon this point, because two courts of oompitest
jurisdiction had already given decisions upon the point, and
it was not within the province of this court to say whether
the other two were right or wrong in their judgments. As
to the point whether the plaintiff had sufficiently described
the nature of his interest io the property. whenhe stated
that he was the occupier, and upon this point he had enter-
tained considerable doubt, but he had at length come to
the conclusion that be could not nonattit the plaintiff upon
this ground. Whilst saying this, however, he must add
that the statement in the notice of the interest of the
plaintiff was the barest that could possibly be allowed to
pass.
Rule discharged.
The case of "Bowchill v. the Charfrig-cross Railway
Company" was of the same nature, and • similar judgment
was pronounced.