The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-23 00:00:00

Barons Vlca.Cia.vcataos Eta R. itattasarr.

ItOrKINS C. CADDICK.—iNJUNLTION TO SESTRAIN Till
WoRILING or CuAL MINES.
Mr. Malin and Mr. Renshaw moved in this case on 1 c-
half of the plaintiff., who were lessees of a coal mine, in the
parish of Rowley Regis, Staffordshire, for an injunction to
restrain the defendant., who were lessees of an adjoining
coal mine, celled the Tiridale Mine, from working into or
interfering with the plaintiff. mine.
The evidence in support of the application proved that
the plaintiffs having reason to suspect, from the quantity of
coal sold weekly by the defendants, that they could only
obtain it by infringing upon the plaintiffs mine. directed
potions to inspect the defendants' works ; that great iliffi.
cultic!, were placed in the way of such iaspection by a dam
being raised to darken the mffit and by the air being cut
off faun the pipes, so as to prevent the mcu from
breathing or keeping their lamps a light. That alter several
attempts the plaintiffs were at length able to procure evi-
deece that the defendants had worked as much as half an
are of a thirty yard seam of coal belonging to the plaintiffs,
and in consequence of this conduct the plaintiffs now taint
fur an injunction to I resent a contiuuance of the illegal
Proceedings of the defendants.
Mr. Craig and Mr. Morris opposed the motion on the
ground that the court hail no jurisdiction to interfere by
injunction to restrain an act for which an action at law
might be brought, and for which compensation comma-
eurate with the damage don: might he obtained at law.
The Vice-Chancellor said ho had no doubt whatever as
to the jurisdiction of the cart to interfere. It was true
that the court could not grant an iujunction to re-
strain a single trespass, but that was nut the ease
where there was a continued trespass, particularly
in respect of a mine where it was difficult to see the atuount
of damage and to obtain evidence of it. It had been argued '
that there was no irreparable mischief here, and that the
plaintiffs ought to be left to their legal remedy, but where
a party was actually working a mine belonging to the
and in fact biking away part of the property, the
court had full power to interfere. The evidence went to
show that the defendants had worked into the plaintiffs
mine and bad proceeded 30 yards beyond their own boun-
dary, and under these circumstances he should grai.t the
injunction, Lut the plaintiffs must amend their bill and
bring before the court the representatives of Mr. Pcniber-
tun, from whom the Rate was granted, but aho it was
stated had since died.

ECM, NAIR
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT-STOCIE COMPANIES
WINDINO-CF ACTS PM AND 1849, AND OF THE BRIGHTON,
LEWES, AND TUNBRIDGE WELLS Dam: r RAILWAY
COMPANY.--CoNWAY'S CASE.

--....... _
Ou the 224 July last Sir W. Horne, the Ma<ter to whom
the winding up of the alisirs of the above company was
interred, made an order directing the nun.. of Mr. Seymour
Conway to be struck out of the list of contributories. This
was 4 motion by the of cial manager that that order might
be discharged.
It appeared that Mr. Conway retitled at Kennington,
from the month of January, ISti, to the mouth 01 Au-
gust. INIO, and that from the month of January, 1541, to
the month of January, ISto, he carried on bu-ine.s in Star-
Court, Bread-street, in r.,rtntrahlp with another person,
when he retired from business altogether, and the budnos
1 premise.; were given up. Previously to tlw month of Oe-
tuber, 151.11, he applied by letter for shares in the above
company, and ti be placed on the list of the prusi,ional
committee ; but he received ao answer to his application or

• -
communication until the month of October 1545, when he re-
ceived a printed circular from the secretary of the company,
stating that the qualification fur a provisional director was
the holding of 50 shuns in the company, and request-
ing to know whether he would take them; and
in reply thereto he sent • letter dated from his
residence at Kenninirtm, the 14th of October, 1815,
which was as follows: •• Kennington, 14th October, 111,.
Sir.—ln answer to yours of yesterday, I beg to say I have
made an upplicatiun ter 50 shares, and as a member of the
provisional committee, I shall be obliged if you will allot
them to use. I am, yours obediently, Seymour Conway.
To the Secretary of the Brighton, Lewes, and Tonbridge
Wells Railway Company." Mr. Conway deposed that
neither the secretary nor any other per-on replied to that
letter, and that he did not receive any letter or communi-
cation en the subject, either assenting to his application, or
declining the some, or allotting any shares to him in the
01,11111.111 V, or otherwise ; and he therefore concluded that
his application was not granted, and that no shares had
been allotted to him, and that his name was not placed on
the provisional committee. lie further deposed that he
did nut further interfere therein, that he did not pay any
deposit, or call, or other payment in respect of any shares
in the company or otherwise, and that he had not signed or
executed any agreement or died relating to the com-
pany, or any shares therein or otherwise ; that he
had not attended, or been present, at any meeting of the
provi-ional committee, or any other meeting of or relating
to the company, nor had he either directly or indirectly in-
terfered or acted therein, or in the affairs thereof, and he
had no knowledge of any matters connected with the com-
pany.
On behalf of the official manager it was proved that on
the 10th of October, ISt), the provisional committee or the
managing committee passed a resolution in these words—
" That the number of shares offered to the provisional
committee be fifty, and that a letter be sent to each gentle-
gam requesting an answer on or bean. the lath of October,
1845, stating what number (if any) he is inclined to take."
And that this notice, with a letter from the secretary, was
sent in pursuance of this resolution to Mr. Conway. `Then
VIM no other evidence of what the contents of the litter were
except from the above letter of Mr. Conway, of the 14th of
October, 1945. In a viva ewe eaamioation before Oil
Master, the secretary stated that in reply to that letter of
Mr. Conway, be sent to that gentleman the usual letter of
allotment, and a letter hail been received from him, stating
his readiness to receive those shares. It also appeared that
Mr. Conway's name had been inserted in the printed list of I
the provisional committeemen, and that his name had been
struck out by an ink line, which had been rubbed out by
the finger, and it was a matter in dispute before the court
whether the name had been struck out by the order of the
directors or not; and as to this particular the evidence of
the secretary was indefinite. The secretary, in his .viva
voce esamin ition, also stated that he had nu doubt he had
sent a letter of allotment to every one whose name was is
the list ; and in answer to the question, " Is that a copy et
the letter written by you to Mr. Conway 3." the secretary
said, ff It is • true copy so far as the printed portion, but the
blanks were filled up according to the number of shares
applied for,' ;and in Mr. Conway's case the blank was tillcd
up fur ad shares.
The case was argued en Friday last.
Mr. Terrell, for the Mired manager, submitted that Mr.
Conway's case was exactly the same as CAN! (2
House of Lords Reports, 674), and that, therefore, Mr.
Conway's name meet bs inserted in the list as a contri-
butory.
Mr. W. W. Cooper, ffr Mr. Conway, said the distinction
between this case and Uplill's ease was, that in Cptill's c..se
there was an actual acceptance of shares previously allotted,
whilst in the present ease there was no evidence of any ao-
teal allotment. Ile cited Carraichaal's ease (17 Sim. lea),
Onien's case (1 Simons N.S.), Carrick s case (11). 501),
Barber's ease (15 Simons 51).
The Tiee-Chaneellor now delivered judgment. After
stating the facts of the ease. he said it bad been contended
that this c.eee was governed by l'ptill's cam, which no doubt
was binding in this court ; but looking at the circumstances
of the present case as far as he bad stated thins there was a
clear distinction between the two eases. In Upfill's ease
there was an allotment of shares. rpfill was • provisional
committeeman, and had accepted the shares allotted to him,
In the present case there was no appointment or allotment.
A resolution had been passed that a certain number at
shares (fifty) should be offered to each provisionel awe
mittee man, and • letter was to be sent to each somber
requesting an answer, stating the number which ha was
inclined to take. The allotment was not to take place, V
at all, until after the answer had been received. Mr. Cots
way's letter contained a request that filly shares should be
allotted to him, that is w hen the allotment of shares should
take place. In Uptill's case there was an actual allotment
of slums. Here there was merely an offer of an allot•
ment of shares to be, but net already, allotteel
ease was in accordance with the decision in Barber's ease,
referred to in the argument. The list of contributories

appeared to have been made out by the Master on the
evadence of the secretary of the company. (His Honour
here read the evidence as stated above.) lie proceeded to
say that he th•sught that the. was an extremely loose state-
ment. It contained no reference to the books or to ane
records kept by aoybo iy, on behalf of the company, uto
what had actually been dune. It contained no particular
statement lib to the let:cr sent by Mr. Conway, and it did
not state in what way the letters stated to have
b.en posted weer addressed. Mr. Conway's appli-
cation to the MULL!, that his name sight be
taken off the list, was supported by an ailldavit,
which his Honour read, and said that it, in distinct term,