The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-18 00:00:00

Ezrosz Lou. Caunrawm, (Veer Ciwocsuos.)

ATTORNEY-0 ENEItAL r. Cor ENS lIAIIDT.—MOTIoS TOIL AN
INJUNCTION .t•I TO THE USE Or A WESLEYAN Clt.tl•El..
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Bethell, and Mr. Little
moved in this ease on behalf of the nlator,, who were
memlnrs of a methodist comprezatiln in Norfolk, for an in-
jimetion to restrain the defendant., the trustkes of a
We.leyan rhair•l at Holt, in Norfolk, from preventing the
and enjoyment of the chapel by the plaintiff., and
from permitting any other person to use the %tune for the
purpee ot• any religion, service. The plaintiffs contended
that tile ilefebad.mts were lietio4 contrary to the trusts of
the bleeds under !I the eluspel was conveyed to them.
Thu 'Nauman. were not concluded at the rising of tlic
court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII—YESTEADAT.
sienna. IN BANCO. 811/.111 Loo CAMPNILL, MR. .IV+TICII BAT-
T.... Ma. NINTICI. Waimea •su Ma. it ,11, a ram..
ELAM C. LaINIKIN AND NOICCII WLsfEICN ItAILWAT.
Mr. Him& row and %Ir. Bramwell were heard in total.
:woman' of the eu,e, the fact. of which appeared
in the report of the pr. a, eding Wetinvoilay.
'I he Athirst, c.f.i. nerd, Mr. lavit, and Mr. Cockle were
to have argticii in auwairt of the rule, but woe atoppial by
the court,
Lord f 'ampbcll ,latina that they thought there must be a
nor trial, U., c,nti to airide the eveut.

DIWNIIIOND r. K 111.1.11N(llUMT.
Mr. Grernwmal, upieell Mr a rub to stay proceed-
ings until the plaintiff sit Id give security fur coats. The
ailiflavits stated that the plaiutitf was a native of l'hiladel-
phia, and limit:lit tin are. id action ugaiiwt the defendant.
who was the raptain of a akoo 1, for a quantity of gold dust,
all- gist to have larva &livers il to him, hut which he denied
' vier having rreivid. 'lke plaintiff had guise on hoard the
dermal:uses ship a. a sailor at California, unit had come to
this country, nut hail no ptrittanent residence hem
It was imiatiestloil that this lirmight the case within the tle-
ti.ian iu " &Heim v. Johnson" (6 B. and Al., WI).
Lord Campbell said lie hail always nuilerstaosl the rule to
be that this arpliv itioni would wit bus grantill where the
*iota, altliouili a Mrs igner and generally residiug abroad,
was at the time of Ow applicati ~,, in this country. That t:m
pawns case wools! be gang beyond all the authorities, and
that where it apt. .as that the plaintiff is ri siding here and
is not I, PO 114,C any domicile out of Englaud, the
vrt somption must be taken to be that he intends to reside
here.
Kale Mused.

DlDlr'Llrat V. CISAWDZIILAIN.
This was an netball fora libel published in the ffeirford
and was tried before Mr. Justice l'atteam at Here-
fowl, when the verdict was giros far the plaintitf, da-
MAW. ilk.
Mr. Whateley, Q,C., moved fair a rule (-ailing on plaintiff
to show C 411.0 naly the verdict shoobl not be entered fur the
defendant, or why there should hot be a new trial on the
of of auisiirection. The substance. of the libel complaimal
of was that the plaintiff was the owner of a ditch in
the town of Lealburv, which communicated with certain
retch-pits shish lawf beam built by the plaintiff to catch the
Pewage as it CAM.' front the town; that he had been
called on by the defendant to ch anse it, which he refused
to du; that he was then mammonist under the Sanitary
Art, and tie latagistrat.sa held that it was not a nuisance at
that time, but that if it became so, another application
should Is• ma le; that anther was made, and that the
plaintiff ia,t, rf real aniun the Magistrates, who ultimately
alismissa al the cast; and that the plaintiff always professed
great alesin• to benefit the town of Ledbury, but wheat the
opportunity offered refused to do no, because it touched his
poelet. The defendant pleaded nut guilty, and three
special pleas, justifying dilferent parts of the alleged libel.
The first of these wan pleaded as to au match of the libel as
alleged the making, maintaining, anal continuing the
nuisance in the declaration mentioned, and after recapitu-
lating all the fact.. averred that the ditch or catch-pits
were IA nuisance. It appeared that the ditch, though situate
am the plaintitra lamb, was one into which all the houses
in at et main pact of the town had a right to drain, hot that
the catch-pit. were for the exclusive benefit of the plaintiff.
The jury Mandl that the ditch and catch-pits were a nui-
mime hut that the inhabitants had a right to drain into
this Silvio. Anal the question wan, whether the plaintiff or
defendant was entitled to judgment on thin verdict. It
was now annita ruled that, although the inhabitants might
have a right to drain into this ditch, anal that the plaintiff
could not therefore close it up, he was still liable, an
he alone had power to elcunne it, anal wan bound to doll);
anal that the right to drain iutu it could only, have arisen lay
sore license given by a previous owner of tae estate, and
that the owner was therefine liable if it became a nuisance.
Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.—YesTERDAT.
Pirmuo ix SAUNA, urusz ML Jtorses Ootanasor.
HINT T. Tilt GMT VT NORTilEall RAILWAY' COMPANY.

Mr. Wordsworth unwed fur a rule to show cause why a
writ of prohibition should not issue, adilmoseil to the judge
of the county court of Barnet in lierttordshire. The ap-
plication was made on behalf of the Great Northern Rail-
way Company, and it arose out of a plaint brought into
that court on the 21th of February last obtained by the
plaintiff against the company. By the :k'eth section of the
County Courts Act (9 & 111 tiet., cap. 111) jurisdiction was
conferred rot the county courts in eases of damage and de-
' nand, with a certain proviso or exception, and in that
exception were included all questions of title, incorporeal
hereditament., tolls, de. lu this he ohjected to the
junsilietion of the county court, inasmuch us the nutter
decided by the judge had reference to " tolls." A Feat
quantity of emit was brought by the company from I ork-
•Mire and Leicestershire. There was a power given by one
of the acts of parliaments relating to this railway., autho-
rising the company to convey coal belonging to other person.
in the carriages or waggons of such other persons. at a
rate of charge not exceeding a certain maximum veci-
tied. There was also power given to the company
to make a charge fur the waggons or trucks of
such !arsons wit, ii returning empty ut the rate of 41d.
per mile. The present CAA' arose wit of a competition rtt-.•-
tween parties bringing up cal. The plaintiff, in order to
have his coal cone eyed from Leicestershire, sent ten toe k.
laden to Puterbornugh, and required the company to
transmit them to Potter's Bar, a short distance frau the
London terminits. The company, however, refused to do
so, unless all charges previously due were paid, including
118. per mile for taking teak sundry empty carriages front
Potter's liar to Peterborough. The plaintiff refused to
satisfy this claim, and took proceedings in the County
Court to recover compeneation iu damages fur the injury he
hail sustained in consequence of the company refusing to
convey his co el. At the hearing of the cue an objection was
t deco to the jurisdiction of the court, as the question in-
. volvcd was one of " specially excepted, as before
• stated. The Judge took time to consider, and on the 28th
t of March g ere judgment in favour of the plaintiff, awarding
• him 39!. 19-. 61. debt and 13/. Ss. costs. The railway com-
pany had refused to pay the demand, believing dui they
had fUniCiillt ..rounds to ask fur the interference of a supe-
rior court. The learned counsel having cited some authori-
ties iu support of 11:4 application,
Mr. Justin. Coleridge oho. reed that he was far from sav-
ing the judge had derided the question correctly ; for ho
would no: ...icier, tll any opinion on that point: but he
thought that the county court juilt had iurisdietion, and
could entertain the question. T only point which he
,\lr. Judie% Coleridc.) had to consider was one of jurisdic-
tion, and he had to th tide whither the title of the company
t • tall calm. in question. It seemed to ;dui that it did not ;
mil all th d fn• county court judge tad to deride was whe-
ther the company bad made oat their tight to receive pay-
ment. Ile was of opinion that the judge had jurisdict.on;
and, th.Tetor.... that there meat to be ao rule.
little Went