The Express.
London, England, 1863-03-13 00:00:00

SQUALL

Mr. fdalies. Q. 0., Mr. Martindale, and Mr. F. O. Hayoes
moved in this ease for an injunction to restrain the de-
tendon* their amens, somata, and workmen, from two-
: middies to erect • propelled Maid, or any other or similar ,
convenieem, en • spot adjacent to the garden-wall of Buck-
ingham Palace, immediately opposite to No. 38, Gramme.
place, and nearly opposite to the plaintiff's residence, which
was at No. 35, Grosvenor-place, and at the distance of
about thirty-five yards from the centre of the
proposed 001:It•DieDIM. The defendant* were empow-
eyed by the sot few the better local management of
the metropolis (the 18 h and 19th Vie., a. 120) to provide
and maintain such conveniencesof the above nature, M such
plume as they Might deem requieite, and for that purpose
were invested by the act with the powers and duties of
surveyors of highways in England. On the 7th August
1862, the defen&nts,acting under those powers, duly peeped
a resolution for the construction of the convenience in ques-
tion ; and soon afterwards, the plaintiff and several other
noblemen and gentlemen residing in Gromeace-place. whose
louses avenged a rental of about 800 f. a year, sod wars in
the enjoyment of a view towards the gardens of Bucking-
ham Palace, presented • memorial to the defendants, de-
moment; and protesting against the exesatios of
the intended week, as Pi would be injurious to their pro-
perty, offensive to them as occupiers • noremoneble on the
score of public amoulmodatiom am on that ground oely one
might equally well be placed in front of Buckingham
Palace itself ; as other better situations might be found for
it ; as the sat of parliament contemplated, not the
but the suppremion, of nuisances ; and as the weertsent
the owners of the soil on which it was to be erectri was an
essential requisite to the completion of it, which owner-
ship was in the crown, and the Board of Works
bad not consented. The defendants, in reply to
that memorial, said they proposed to braid •
wall 26 feat in length to coneepoed with that of
the Palace-gardens, and behind which proposed wall the
convesience was to be placed. That screen, it was on the
other band said, would increase rather than diminish the
mil, as it would sifted a recentade for filth of all Made, •
cause still more obeli:ions smalls and exhalations to arise.
Mr. Bacon, Q.C., add Mr. Schoenberg appeared for the
defendants, sad insisted that the wall of the
was now so didlgurert with the public resent:l'47=44;a
construction of the proposed °mantissas would, by con.
*outman the existing Enhance, snateriall: benefit the
net
W I)
Chancellor old the defendants yelled upon
their parliamentary powers ; and it had also been contended I
for them that, in truth, every such convenience as thatnow
proposed was neossearily a nuisance. But even so, hie
Honour thought that, while the act certainly authorised
them to construct such accommodation for the public use,
it did not enable them to do so merely with the view of
obviating another Indiana*. If they bad an absolute power
of making their works anywhere, the only question would
be as to the proper mercies of it. It had
also been mid that if they had suds a power
of constructing works of the port complained of,
the pluintiffs common law right of abating the nuisance
bad been takenaway from him by toast; bet his Honour
thought that the set did not give any such absoluM
pewee to the defendants ; and as it was manifest that these
works could be so constructed as not to be • nuisance to
any one, and as there was deeply the danger of injury being
does to the plaiotirs property, he was entitled to an in-
junction until the bearing of the mum, as prayed by the
; and his Honour made • decree accordingly.

(80b,.0 tie Lords Justices.)

THI MARQUIS or BUTZ F. TM TAFT VA= RAILWAY

COXPAIIIT.
This was an appeal from a aseisiom of Vice-Clutnoslior
Wood, refai as injunction to the Marquis of Bute to
restrain the of an agreement between the Taff Vale
Railway Company sod the Pensrth Harbour and Railway
Company, whereby the latter's work, were to be leased to
the former ; sod to restrain the Taff Vale Company from
causing to be shipped any goods earned on their line at aay
harbour constructed under the Penarth Company's Act
1857, or at any place near the mouth of the River Ely. The
injunetion was .ought ceder the following circumstance, :
The Miff Vol. Company having obtained an act to ociaatrace
a branch between the river Ely and Cogan's Pill,
, which was likely to interfere with the Marcials
of Bute'. renal at Cardiff, the trades, of the
I latter in the year 1849 mitered into an agreement with
the Taff Vale Company 'ceder which the company
consented to &hoodoo their branch line, and to cease all
goods conveyed on their main line for shipment to be ship-
ped in Tema' in the Bute Canal. Io the year 18.17 the
Penrarth Company obtained an set to construct a list from
Cogan's Pill to the Biver /My, sad is the Demme of 1889
' the Taff Vale Company proposed to lease this lime for the
conveyance of traMe. To prevent the ca ityzne otas
outiof chic
agreement the present bill was Med. The
left the plaintiff to panne his remedies in a court of law,
and dismiissd the bill. Howe the perintmel.
Mr. W. M. James sad ILL Potter the a
Sir H. Cakes end Mr. may were for Tel Vale Cc..
pony ; Mr. Bolt and Mr. lake Ransil ler the Mew& 1
(10019187.

COURT OP PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
MATCH 12.
(Wore the Judge Ordinary.)
lICIIOI.BOII V. 111101101141011 AND ItATOLI7VI.
(00130iilded frau yesteeday's Express.)
_ _

Sir C. Onesswell haring a;muled up the case as reprded
the adultery,
Thepry retired for about two hours, and ultimately (mad
• verdict for the husband.
His lordship than sunned up the ass with respect to the
=ate. and
The jury retuned a redid for the wife.
Sir C. Crowell reserved by *pont on theme findings.