The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-25 00:00:00

FROM THE NARQCIS OP LOXDONDEURT.

Holden:en House, March 8, 1853.
Gentlemeo,-1 shall not only have great pleasure in °m-
ilting my pictures of the Peningulae and Waterloo Heroes
to the Directors of the Thblin Industrial Exhibition, but I
will trim them further with the finest portrait, by Law-
rence, of the Duke of Wellington, which he sat for for me
on our return from the PeniusulAr and Continental Wars in
1815. I have religiously
to the ileke's family ; but I cannot, as ale Irish s .Idier, re-
fuse to place it, one of the greatest treasures I certainly
possess, in that splendid Exhibition now carrying forward
in the country which owns him as one of her s ns, and in
that city where I, his friend sad follower for a quarter of a
century, was born.—l remain, gentlemen, your obedient
servant, VANE LONDONDERRY.

Lau intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YrsrEan
Bureau run Luaus Jyrricsa Cr Arras.
JOHNSON P. TUZ SHUSIISAVUT AND RH/MINGO RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Lambert ap.
peered in support of this appeal motion, which was from an
order made on Monday last by Vice-Chance her Wood,
whereb be refused to grant the injunction asked by the
plaintiffs. It appeared that the company had engaged the
plaintiffs as contractors to work their Lae, and Lad bound
themselves in an agreement, by the terms of which the
plaintiff+ undertook to work the line and trains of the de-
fendants, and to provide foremen, engine-men, and sere
vents for that purpose, and also to provide co il, coke, and
rolling stock. This arrangement was to continue seven
years, determinable upon certain terms at the end of
three months' notice to be given by the defendants. The
defendants having given notice to determine the contract
were about to resume the poeseseion of their line; and to
work the trains without the assistance of the plaintiffs. The
injunction was to restrain them from so doing, on the
ground that it would he a breach of the agreement with the
plaintiffs; and the bill also asked to have certain portions
of the agreement construed and interpreted by the court.
The facts of the case may be seen stated more in detail in
the report of the motion for the injunction bef ire the court
below, given in our impression of Tuesday last.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Giffard appeared on behalf of the com-
pany.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said, that the motion seeking
as it did to restrain the defendants tram acting, as it was
alleged, at variance with the terms of the agreement,
and also to have the agreement construed, was
in effect an application to have the agreement
specifically perforated. The agreement, however, did
not, he thought, belong to that class of agreements in
which the exercise of the jurisdictioa to direct specific per-
formance was either habitual or (unifier with the court.
The case, however, might be new in specie only, but not in
kind or principle. The question, therefore was, did it
range itself within the class of cases in which the court
would direct specific performance. The agreement was,
that the plaintiffs should, for a period of seven years, of
which six were unexpired, employ the plaintiffs in a capa-
city between that of agents and servants, but more nearly
resembling that of servants. The sole object of the de-
fendants was the payment to them of a certain amount of
money in respect of their services. Tho nature of the ser-
vices to be rendered was that at all times during the con-
tinuation of the contract, the plaintiffs should run and
work the trains, and find servants and stock for that purpose.
There was also a clause, which was certainly in his view an
extraordinary one, viz., that the plaintiffs, the contractors,
should not be answerable for any loss, damage, or compen-
"Mien recoverable from the railway company in respect of
any deaths or damage done to p issengers, or live or dead
goods, except where caused by the neglect of the
, contractors, and then never to an extent exceeding
,one hundred pounds. The effect therefore, of the
agreement was that the running and working of the trains,
a matter so interesting to a large class of the Queen's sub-
jects, was committed to men who might cause any number
of deaths, and cause bodily injury to any number of per-
sons at a risk of 1001., and no more. Directors, when they
ran the trains themselves, were under a general responst-
blity, and the public had to that extent a guarantee,
though en imperfect sue, for careful and attentive manage-
ment. But in the present instance society lost, by the effect
of the agreement in question, even that guarantee, a consi-
deration not to be overlooked, assuming even Chet there was
nothing in the agreement contrary to public policy. Though
the agreement might not be astaikst pablie there
might, nevertheless, be objections to the court interfering
a decree for specific performance. Passing by the ques-
tion of public policy, still, in the case of an anti ement, the
effect of which wu that the plaintiffs were to be con-
fidential agents of the defendants in the performance of
most important duties, it was particularly necessery for
the due performance of these, sot only tor the sake
of the parties immediately concerned but also of society at
large, that there should be a most entire harmony dad
spirit of co-operation between the contracting parties. But
how could this prevail in the position in which the defend-
ants would be placed if an injunction were granted.. What
was asked was, in effect, to compel them to employ, against
their will, agents for purposes with respect to the due per-
formance of which it was adulated confidence on their part
or their agents was requisite. Let the agents be the beet
and most competent persons possible, still if they and their
principles did not agree the mischief apprehended might all
be done. Considering that the plaintiff's ode object was
money, there would be no equality in the effect upon the
litigant parties of an injunction. It was clear, moreover,
that in the present ease there was no mutuality of rights
between the parties. Had tbe.defendants been minded to
compel the plaintiffs to perform their duties, it
could not have been done here. It would-have been
beyond the power of a court of equity to do it. There
king therefore no mutuality, land putting morality eat of
I the case, it was not within the rules or principles of a court
of equity to interfere by specific performance. The caw
was not, moreover, one for an interim injunction, consider-.
lag that the inconvenience and mischief which would result
therefrom to the defendants, to say nothing of society at
large, would be so much greater than any that could possibly
arise therefrom to the plaintiffs.
Lord Justice Turner said he was also of opinion that the
plaintiff's application should be refuted, and in coming to
that conclusion he did not proceed on the assumption that
the contract in question was invalid. He eerainly had
some doubt as to the validity of the contract, the object of
which was to depute to the plaintiffs responsibilities which
the legislature in granting the act of ie.corporatioa,
had intended to confide to the plaintiffs alone;
but it was not upon that ground that his deci-
sion was rested. Here the bill sought to have • con-
struction put upon the contract by the court, and then
asked for the relief consequential upon such construction.
Now it was not the province of a court of equity to put a
legal construction upon instruments : that was entirely a
question for the consideration of a court of law. The court
indeed would interfere to protect property, while the ques-
tion of right, depending upon agreement, was being deter-
mined by a court of law. This it did on the ground of ap-
prehended and irreparable injury to the property in the
meantime. Here, however, there was no pretence by the
plaintiff, of apprehended injury to the stook or plant, and
therefore the remedy, by an application for damages for
breach of the agreement, to a court of law would meet full
the justice of the ease. Where that was so, the court would
not interfere by injunction, and the motion must therefore
be dismissed. The coats would be costa in the cause.