The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-26 00:00:00

Notice of 'notion bad been given, bat room appeared
for the defendants, and the injunction wax mated.

TRUFFLES OF TitleHlTLn LEA NAVIGATION O. Tlll

---
Gt,VERNOR ateu COMpANT ur Tag NNW RIVRIL
Mr. Culvert (with whom was Mr. Bodwell) renewed his
motion for an injunction to restrain the New River Com-
pany from continuing to maintain and uphold a certain
course of bricks upon the lip or upper edge of the turnpike,
or tumbling-bay, across Manifold-ditch, and from main-
taining the said turnpike or tumbling-bay of any greater
height than it has bees heretofore, and from omitting or
neglecting to maintain the turnpike or tumbling-bay so low
as to keep or reduce the head of water flowing down the
ditch upon a level with, and not higher than, the top of the
marble gauge or trough, and the two-adjacent capped stones
placed as standards at the brick arch and Chadwell spring;
and that they might also be restrained from taking any
rester quantity or body of water out of the river Lee, or
Manifold-ditch, into the New River, through the marble
gauge or trough, than such quantity or body as can run
and pass through the gauge or trough in a natural course,
and without any pen, and from doing or omitting anything
whereby the water below the marble gauge or trough
should be lower than its former level, or whereby any super-
fluous water more than can pass through the gauge with a
natural current might be prevented from falling over the
turnpike or tumbling-bay into the river Lee.
The question raised by the motion was, whether some re-
cent works of the New River Company had the effect of
obtaining from the river Lee a larger quantity of water than
they were entitled to take under the provisions of the statute
of the 12th George IL, c. 32, which regulated the communi-
cation between the two streams. It appeared to be ad-
mitted on both sides that the New River Company had a
right to the water which passed through the gauge, and had
a right to draw from the river Lee no greater body or
quantity of water than would pass through the gauge. The
plaintiffs relied on the words of the statute, which directed
that the water should be permitted to peas over the Mani-
fold-ditch, to the turnpike and sluice near Chalk Island,
" in 4 natural course," and they contended that notring
should be done which would have the effect of increasing
the momentum and velocity of the stream musing through'
the guage. The works which were complained of had,
they alleged, and as they argued was shown by the affida-
vits, the effect of augmenting the rapidity of the stream,
and thrrefore obtaining a greatly increased quantity of
water through the Parse orifice.
Mr. Bothell and Mr. Toiler, for the New River Com-
pany, argued that upon the statute it was plain that only
three things were prohibited with reference to this dispute
1. The New River Company were not to mike an artificial
head or pen above the marble gauge; 2. They were not to
alter the natural flow or current of the stream ; and, 3. They
were not to augment the dimensions, and thereby increase
the capacity of the gunge. The company had done none of
these things. They had made no alteration above the guage ;
but there was nothing to prevent them from clearing or
opening the flow of water below the guage, even though
that might have the effect of accelerating the passage of the
water.

Mr. Calvert replied.
Vice-Chancel!or Turner said, this application was made
on four several grounds—First, to restrain the defendants
frompermittiug the water to flow from Manifold ditch,
through the new cut ; secondly, to restrain them from
takiug any other water than eau pass through the ditch in
its natural course, without any " pen ;" thirdly, to re-
strain them from taking the water through any other cut
than that which existed under the act ; and fourthly, to
prevent them from doing any other act which should pre-
vent the water flowing in its natural channel. It was
obvious that the assistance of that court was only called in
to aid the courts of law; and it must be satisfied that at
least the legal rights of the parties were open to great
doubt, and that irreparable injury would result, without
the interference of the court. He considered that the Ist
and 3ril questions, and the 'ltd and 4th, rested substantially
on the same grounds. The first depended almost en-
tirely on the legal construction of the sth section of the act
—(his Honour read the section as before set out)—and the
question was whether
that
section had so irretrievably
bled the course by which the water was to flow to the
marble gauge that no alteration could ever be made. It
had been said that if the company were entitled to deviate
ut all, there was nu reason it should not alter the whole
course of the channel, and altogether escape the " tumbling
busy." Extreme cases might be put on either side; but if
he was to grant the present injunction, he must say that no
alteration at all could be made, and ho was not prepared to
affirm that proposition. Where the act intended to prescribe
that exact limits should be maintained they were stated on
the face of the act, as in the case of the wooden trough,
which woo always to be continued of the same dimensions;
but with respect to other parts it has obly said that the
main works were to be continued the same as they then
were. Then, was there any case of irreparable injury?
lie could not say there was. There might be conveniences
on the one side and on the other. On the one, if the court
did not interfere the trustees might lose the water
to which they were entitled; on the other, if it did,
the company might be unable to supply its customers. But,
moreover, he thought the case was not made out in point of
fact. It was true that three occasions were stated in the
affidavits on which the water had been above the top of the
gauge ; but there was no statement of how long those ores-
MOM had lasted; and when he found that there was a ser-
vant of the trustees constantly at the spot, who made no
affidavit, he thought it rather suspicious. When there wire
a sudden rise of water, it might well be, that, for • few
moments it would rise above the top of the gauge
before the " tumbling buoy" had reduced it to its natural
level, and the observations might have been made at such
moments. Ile should, therefore, not grant the injunction,
but should direct the motion to stand over, with liberty to
the plaintiffs to bring any action at law which they might
be advised, and with liberty to apply again.

viola VICB-CIUMMLLIM Sin R. IC I!DWLR►.

SOLTAU O. Dr HELD.-INJUNCTION AB TO THE RINGING

OF BELLS AT CLAPHAM.

Mr. Malin and Mr. Tripp appeared for the plaintiff in
this case, which was reported in the Express of Saturday
last, and was a motion for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from permitting the bells of a Roman catholic
chapel at Clapham to be rang. The court had given leave
that the motion should be brought on to-day. This was
objected to by Mr. Bagshawe, on behalf of the defendant,
on the ground that the defendant had been ever since the
bill was filed, out of the country. There had been no time
to communicate with him, and consequently no affidavits in
answer to the motion could de tiled. His solicitor had
entered an appearance, but nothing further could he done.
It was therefore asked that the motion might stand over,
upon an undertaking that the affidavits, should be filed on
or before Saturday next.
Mr. Malinsaid he had no objection to this course, pro-
vided there was also an undertaking that the bells should
not be rung on Sunday next.
Mr. Bsgshawe declined to allow any such undertaking to
be given.
the Vice-Chancellor suggested that the plaintiff might
go to Richmond for one day to avoid the annoyance.
Mr. Malin said that was quite true, and though the Me
could not be heard till Monday next, he would not raise
ant further objection. His client must submit to this in-
tolerable nuisance for one Sunday more, but on Monday
next he should certainly bring ou the motion.

Baroas Vics.Clwcauzos Puug ea.
HANDY AND ANOTHILI O. Till EAST AND WEST INDIA
DucCa AND BINNINOWAN JUNCTION RAILWAY CON-
PANIC. .

This was a motion for • sequestration against the goods
and chattels of the Feat and West India rood,' and Bin..
ingham Junction Railway Company for breach of an in-
junction gsnted and undertakings given by the company
(the defendants) to the plaintiffs on the 31st of January
and the Bth of February last.
It appeared that the plaintiffs are the owners of a valuable
ropery, or rope walk, at Poplar, for the residue
a • keg term of years, on which they were carrying on a
valuable business. The company agreed with the plaintiffs
to carry their railway in such a way that the then level of
the ropery should not be in the slightest degree altered at
any portion, nor the surface area, length, or ectent of the
ropery in the least degree diminished, and that the work
should be done to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs, with cies,
tain stipulations for compensation. The company made
their railway across the ropery without observing the agree-
ment, and on the 31st of January last, after a very
lengthened hearing before the court, the company was
restrained from constructing their railway through the
ropery in such a manner as when finished the then level
of the ropery should in any way be altered, or the
surface area and length-or esteat of the ropery diminished,
lentil the further order of the court, the defendants under-
taking not, without the leave of the court, to exercise such
eight, if any, as they had to affect the raptly at variance
with the agreement. The company having committed a
breach of their undertaking, as the plaintiffs understood it,
the plaintiffs again applied to the court on the Bth of Feb-
, nary last, when, saber a lengthened hearing, the company
undertook to build a bridge within four months from that
time to the satisfaction of Mr. Brunel, and to issue a wsr-
rant to the sheriff, to summon a jury to assess the damps
to the plaintiffs within two months after the completion of
the defendants' works. Mr. Brunel being of opinion that
be was not willeiently infOrmed of the nature of the road-
way to be formed by the company across and over the rail-
way, the states was again brought before the court on the
17th of Inas 1861, when the court declared that the
bridge tossitioed in the order of the Bth of Febewy,
1861, ought to be such • bridge as would be required kr
any purpuee to which • tenant could apply the surface of
the ground fee building on, or forming a public carriage or
cart-road. has his order the company appealed but the
Vrael hae sea been beard. It weaved from •ffidairits
Mad in supped of the Reagent es that the company
bad finished the meting betl s, senstructed of timber
covered with gravel of a foot tkiigss. with • view to its
being the persona az& mare assess the railway, whisk
as w not the Wed fo the tooties7 were bound to con-
struct. It also that the y lad recently ob-
tained the et the of ridlwait
mania them to eree the railway he public oat h s
*1,4 istaidedi to epee it for Me,
31r. Daniel and 111 r. ma.
posed the motiom, ps the that the IS
quato the et Xs. Mk the
Y par 1.11114 tauten vs mew
Woe the loud Ohmage es tipped. smi Ihiee wee
topieeret haw oliateeer to the giimilltt desist et loot
111111•10.1 to MIA over 101 Y tate the appeal
rg,The gussets. wee witwoher the aw-
-1 I;ll3See befit mrito 11 as the nowt, es the uth Jane
MX, ileheed that*, ighSi were sodded to have.

Swinton v. Janie.
Mr. Krayoa Parker moored in support of a notion for
as intanotiaa to row& the iitimintt, tiro pettish*, of
Pirobtr, or Mins Open sod Promansio Oaanort
Mortise onm/farts and Vasa Nals," pnigithing
No. 111 (Albin work, containing Woo *what, tette boo