The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-10 00:00:00

11••••••
Before Vice• Chancellor Witwean.
MOlllOOll W. BAINnaIUOI. rAl4ll42ntStitir.—UpOn
VW amalgamation, in 1846, of two railway coinintniv‘ into a
single company called the Derbyshire. Staffordshire, and
Worcestershire Junction Railway Company, the plaintiff and
defendant, who had been the respective solicitors of the
'operate companies, were retained by the directors, and
agreed to act as Joint solicitors of the amalgamated company.
In this character they continued to be emplorl till
when the re-
jection of the company's bill by parliament in 1847,
the affairs of the concern were wound up. The present
suit was then instituted against the defei dant, te
whom the bfil of cots for boo noes done for the
he
company bad been paid, for an account upon t
footing of a partner:hip, with equal divbiun of the profits.
The Solofitot-Oeneral and Mr. Leach, for the plaintiff, COn-
tended that the agreement by the defendant to ac
fficien thetth e
plaintiff as joint dicitors of the company was su
constitute a partneiship betwCrn them, and to untie the
yeaintiti to an equal moiety of the profits.—Mr. Wood (with
whom was Mr. l'igg itt) contended that the pleadings and
evidence in the eau.: went to istablish only that tho laintiff
and defendant hod agreed to work as eel ic ors for the company;
but (aired :o show that the profits were to be treated as a
comedin fund. Re relied upon the case of " Tinckle r. S:acey"
(Select Cnancery C.ises, page 9), as an authority tor
the proposition that where two persons jointly agree to do a
panic...ler piece of work, but the money tu be received fur
such work is not to Ik. employed on their joint account, the
persons so contra, ting aro not partner.. As the defendant
had been the active Fully in the management of the legal
part of the compares' s atlairs, they contended that he we
eT
s
entitled to the larger portion of the payment tor cost
argument (or the defendant was not concluded at the rising

COURT OF t.IUREN'S BENt:n.
ClitUOT r. 1111 Co4MteetuNzits or flea WOOll4l AND
Formate —BorTitietea rAlla..-1.12 this case the cleimaut
was the owner of about three acres of loud, intended
ch to
be
be
taken fur the new park at Ilattorses, and for whi
claimed compensation to the amount of 10.2121.
WoThmatter
as
having been submitted to a jury before Mr.
the aseemor for tho sheriff of Surre, e awarded
Chabot 7501. Mr. M. Chambers, yth
suy bsequentlyMr. ob.
tamed a rule, calling on the sheriff of Surrey aud the Com-
missioners of Wood, and Forests to show cause why a
writ sit prohibition should not issue to restrain them from
recording the assetement and verdict of the jury, on the
ground that the crown had claimed 2a. Ir. 38p. of the land in
question, which faced the river Thames, having a frontage of
520 feet, allegieg that it was between high and low water-
marka. and the juty had therefore only estimated the value
of the remaining portion, which was a long strip iulund, and
worth consideralq less.—The Attorney-Oeueral now showed
clam against the rule, and contended that the amount
claimed as compensation by Mr. Chebot was ab3s surdly
2ex01.-
,
travagant. Ile had purchased the lend in 18 tor 1
sad had not Wed h for any preppie since. So for ftom the
two acres facing the river teing excluded from the cuaside-
ration of the jury in estimating the amount of compensation,
it was proved on the inquiry that none of the witnesses esti-
mated the smaller piece of land at more than 300/ , and it was
therefore clear that the remaining 4001. was intended by the
jury fur the toed iu trent of the river. Under any circumstances
a prohibition could not be issued, because that was • writ
directed to • court for excess of jurisdictiuu. The sheriff
here was a ministerial officer to assist in assessing the amount
due in respect of a claim for compensation. It was a tribu-
nal of assessment. end therefore riot a court to which • writ
of prohibition could go. But even if that were not so, there
had been no excess art turisdietioa ; there could not be •
fresh inquiry, the commissioners could have no remedy
either by manefautus or prohibition, it the amount awarded
had been eleeeinire; and both the parties must therefore be '
bound by the decision of the jury. The Commissioners of
Woods and Forests were about to take 300 acre, r the pur-
poses of the new pork at Battersea, and it was preposterous
to suppose they could pay so Enormously for the fend they
required. Here ass a claim of between three and fourthou-
sand pounds per acre for land, which in 1835 had cost less
than -M. au acre, had never suite been used but for browsing
donkeys on, and could not be built upon as there was no
way uf approach to it. lle apprehended, therefore, that
both on the fuets and the law, the rule aught to be dis.
charged. Mr. Weleby foil meet on the wine side. Mr.
Lush (in the absence of Mr. M. Chambers, td.C.) was then
heard at considerable length in support art the rule, and
argued that the sheriff sat more in a jurlie:al thou a minis-
tens: character, and therefore • prohibition would lie.
He further ecntetided that the compereation jury
had no right whatever to go into the question
of the claimant's title as to the land said to belong
to the crown. Not a syllable had been uttered until the
trial which would have led Mr. Chabot to suppose that
such a question would be raised. In fact, the crown had, by
their nutioe to the claimant, and the schedule of the property
which would be required, admitted that thew`nd belonged
to him. The only ejuestiou which the jury re capable ot
entertaining was the amountof compensation to be awarded ;
and it was clear that the sheriff Lad exceeded his jurisdiction,
as h., had so put the case to the jury as to induce them either
to throw entirely away from their consideration the largest
and most valuable portion of the land, or to regard the claim-
ant's title to it as 01 a very doubtful character, and therefore
they awarded him a most inconsiderable amount for the
same, although tome of the meet respectable surveyors in
London had Efeel,red the land in question to be worth the
mount claimed.—The court took time to consider its judg-

Ili' QUEEN ON TIIE PROSECUTION OF Bettor V. CRIA-
rax.—ASSAULT.-1U this case the defendant was found
guilty of an assault on the prosecutor, at tt e last assizes for
the county of Devon. Both parties were gentlemen residing
at Lempstone, near Eernoteh, and various circumstances
bad giren rite so ill f.eling between them, until finally the
defendant struek the prosecutor with his fist whilst in the
company of hie wife and child, and trandishing a horsewhip
threatened to kill him. The defendant was now brought up
for judgment, and affidavits in mitigation and aggravation
were put in, by which it appeared that the defendant had
grossly insulted the prosecutor at a ball at Exmouth, and
been guilty of other acts to provoke him to a breach of the
peeve, in conarquence of which ho had been bound over to
be of good behaviour, and whilst under recognisances had
committed the aseault of which he bad been found guilty.
Be bad suhsequently offered to sign a public apology drawn
up by a third party, and give 501. to the poor of the parish of
Lympatone ; but the prosecutor would not be
sal
tisfiit cr, aed withd
less than an apology prepared by himself or b solicn
the 'payment of 2001. to be invested, and the interest to be
annually given to the poor.—Mr. 6 rjeant Kinglike
and Mr. Greenwood addressed the court for the defence,
after which Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Mr. Cockburn, Q.O , and
Mr. Moody, were heard on behalf of the ).rost cuter.—Mr.
Justice retteson, in passing sentence, said that the assault
was of a most kegraveted character, and the sentence of the
court was that the idef.Ldant should pay a tine of 2001. to
the Queen, and enter into his own recognisance, in 200/.,
and find two sureties in the sum of 1001. each to keep the
peace towards the prosecutor and all her Majesty's subjects
for a period of two years. The defendant was removed in
custody.

-
BAIL COURT.
Fittings In W.DCO, term, Mr. Justice Colt ridge.
Tun QVIMN C. TIM COMMISSIONEWI 01 Ilia WOOD,
£t' FOR.IXTS.—BATTLIWKA PAILL.—Mr. Ogle moved fur a
rale calling on the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to
show cause why a mandamus should not go, commanding
hem to isee their precept to the sheriff or under-sheriff of
the county of Surrey, directing him is summon a jury to
award compsnsation to a Mr. N. Budge, to whom certain
Land belonged which the commission:rs had given notice
they would require fur the new park. The Bth & 9th Vie.,
esp. 31, was the act fo: reeking a royal park at Battersea,
and by the 22nd section it was enacted that the commis-
sioners we re to give notice to the different landowner' whose
property they intended to take, and on the receipt et such
notice the land ,vrnei must send in their claim a ithiu one
calendar month. Then the 23rd section provided, that when
the parties cool l not agree as to the amount to be given
a comp( illation jury should be summoned. The affidavit on
which the 1eer,....d counsel now unwed stated that in the
month of September, 1816, the commissioners gave notice to
Mr. Budge that they meant to take certain freehold property
of his, end on receiving information of such intention that
gettleman sent in his claim for compensation according to
the requirements of the act. Negotiations had been going
on between Mr. Budge, the commissioners, and their nOD-
citor for the last eighteen months, and it had been frequently
proccisecl that a jury should be summoned. Thigs
gone on in this way till within the lase fortnight, when the
present applicant was informed that it Wan the determinatinn
of the commissioners not to refer the matter to a jury at all,
inasmuch as they had no funds in hand to meet any sum
that might be awarded to Mr. Budge as compensation. The
affidavit of the party on behalf of whom the learned counsel
moved ,he court went on to state that the deponent hail
sustained great pecuniary loss by the delay which had
taken pl ace in bringing this matter to a decisive
Mint, o lire having also been served on deponent's
mamas and his business had consequently ceased
to be conducted on the property in coiestion. The learned'.
counsel submitted that the reason assigned for nut calling a
jury torther was not a valid one, tor, by the 3rd section of
the act for making Battersea Paris, the Lord High Trea
, or the commissioners discharging the duties of that
office for the time being, were empowered to lend to the'
Commissioners of the Woods and Forests any sum not ex-
.
ceeding 200,0001. for any purpose that they might require
Mr. Budge had been in communication first with the com-
missioners, and then with their solicitor and surveyor,
having been led to expect that his laud would be taken. The
last letter received from the commissioners was dated the
17th of April in the present year. That letter was
written by Mr. Milne, one of :be commissioner', in
which it was stated that there were no funds to
pay for the land in question.—Mr. Justice Coleridge
inquired if Mr. Ogle was prepared with any cases in which
it had been Leld that the answer now set up by the commis-
sioners was not a good one i—Mr. Ogle replied that he was,
and refet red his lordship to the cases of " Rex v. the Com-
missioners of Market-street, Manchester" (4 Bernewell and
Adolphus) ; and " Regina e. the Eastern Counties
Justice Rail
way " (Carrel's Railway Cases, page 540).—Mr.
Coleridge : Take a rule.
Ex I'AILTIi BUILMCAB7I.E. Mr. Bovill
moved fora rule to show case why a writ of certiorari
should not issue ta bring up an inquest which had been held
at Croydon, on the body of Elizabeth Hopkins, alias How-
ard, and why the inquisition should not either be quashed,
or why Dr. Bumuds, the party making the present appli-
cation, should not have pow, r to traverse it. From the state-
ment of the learned counsel it appeared that Dr. Burncastle
was the medical officer of the Croydon union, and on
the '27th of December, 1847, he w
as
lent
was at
fur to
. attend upon the deceased woman, as she
that time expecting every day to be confined. Although the
deceased party's proper name was Hopkins, she was geese-
ally known by that of !lot/yard, owing to the fact of her
living and cohabiting with • man of that nae, H
of that
oward
was a labourer, earning about 20.. a week ;m but
foot Butscastl• was ignoring, uin forma con-