The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 5, 1849.

of access to the said joint station to vehicles !teemed only. to
ply within the es ty of Chester, or from otherwi.ointerfi rug
with suck aoconisiodation and rights as the plaintiffs wit,
entitled to. The following was the substance of the principal
salmi ni of' the bill and the aifidesits in sup;Ort of tit,-
motion : The plaintiffs, and each of the above-named cow
patties, who are defendants, had, under their various acts ut
parliament, power to take distinct lands for 'tattoos at
Meter, and to erect thereupon separate stations.
Before 1846 the plan had been detertnined iron
of erecting a joint poenl station at Chester,
for the accommodation of all the dahlia of the
usually@ conspanies, and a preliminary muds, was held
for this purpose on the 22ad of December, at which resolu-
tions were mud, to be submitted to the boards of direcou
of the erreraft imputes. One of these resolutions was, that
"complete acoommodation" should be provided at the joint
station for all the traffic of the respective companies, and all
additional accommodation that might be required thereat er
should he provided at the joint expense. A committee was
formed, called the "Chester General Station Committee," and
oomposed of agents of the several cowponies, specially autho-
rimed. On March 11,1847, a misting of the committee was held
at which it was amongst other thiop resolved. Ist. That
the costa of the Joint Statizn and land should be divided
asupt the companies in the proportion of 3 12 the Lon-
don and North Western; 3-12 the Cu...tee and Holyhead ;
2.12 the Chester and Birkenhead; 2-12 the Birkenhead,
Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction ; and 2-12 the Shrews-
bury and Chester. 2nd. That the expense of management
should also be divided between the companiis in
the like proportions. 3rd. That the managemene
be vested in a committee of eight dizuton, to be
nominated by the respective boards, and having
votes as follows : two directors of the London and
Meth Waiters, three votes; two directors of tie
Chester and Holyhead three votes; two directors of
the Chester and Birkenhead, and Birkenhead and Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Junction, four votes; and
two directors of the Shrewsbury and Chester, two
votes. Three companies to be represented at each meeting
of the committee, otherwise no business to be proceeded
with. 4th. That complete station aocommodation should
be providtd at the joint station for all the traffic of the re-
spective companies. and all additional accommodation that
might b requir,d thereafter be provided at the joint ex-
pense. It was also resolved that the station should be
nested; Mr. Stephenson, the engineer, being present at
the meeting, and stating that his es imate for constructing
the station was 95,0001., exclusive of land and goodosheds.
Between March, 1947, and Dea.,1848, the several eoTpanirs
contributed on the footing of the resolutions of March 11,
1847, the following 'mounts In money sad land. vie.: toe
IShrewsbury and Chaster Railway Company, 32,2131 150.3 d.;
the Load, n and North Western Railway Company,
42.0751. 15s. ld. ; the Chester and Holyhead Company,
48,2971. ; and the Birk, ahead, Cheshire, and Lancashire
Junction Company, 32,3541. Ba. Ild. The sums already
expended, including the value of land, was 162,6711. 3e. 3d.
The station, which cocupies 18 acres of land, was opened in
August, 1848, and was used by all lour companies, who em-
played joiatly one station-muter. The disputes which gave
rise to the present litigation arose from the opening of the'
railway from Shrewsbury. to Wolverhampton (being
• continuation of the Shrewsbury and Chester Rail
way, and being intended to be continued to Birmingham, and
to compete with the London and North Western Railway),
and a notice given by the secretary of the Shrewsbury and
Chester Company, to Mr. Jones, the station-muter •
Chester, that that company intended to forward passengers,
parcels, and luggage, from Chester to Birkenhead, ona.
nibs,. The plaintiffs complained that, notwithstanding an
arrangement has been come to between Mr. JOINS and the
Shrewsbury Company, whereby le. 6d. a week was agreed
to be paid for sash cab and omnibus entering the station,
yet barricades were placed arras the public road keeling to
the station, to prevent the plaintiffs' omnibuses tees
coming up, and that police officers and station porters
were assembled for the same purpose, threats of
arrest being held out to any driver who should
attempt to enter the station, and that one was actuolly
arrested on the Bth, acd taken before a magistrate. At •
eating of the station committee, held on the 13th of No-
vember, three mitten were under dissuasion, namely ; Ist.
Whether passengers were to be booked at the station for
Birmingham and Wolverhampton rio Shrewsbury; 2nd.
Whether passengers were to be book• d to Shrewsbury via
Stafford; and, 3rd. Whether omnibuses were to be allowed
to enter the station to convey to Birkenhead such passengers
&scene by the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway; and among
other resolutions it was resolved that no passengen should
be booked at the station beyond the limits of the different
railways respectively belonging to the joint proprietors of
the station, an amendment having been unsucoesfully
moved on behalf of the Shrewsbury and Chester Company.
Another resolution was that the former resolution should be
extended to lines leased or agreed to be leased by the several
different companies. Another resolution was that no om-
nibus or other vehicle licensed to ply for hire be permitted
to enter within the precincts of the station, except it be
licensed by • certificate under the hands of Mr. Jones, and
that it be an intimation to Mr. Jones not to license any
omnibus or other vehicle except such as ply within the city
of Chester only, and in case any vehicle so licensed shall ply
beyond the confines of the city of Chester that inch license
be withdrawn. The plaintiff insisted that than resolutions
were not authorised by the powers of the meeting, and that
the duty of the representatives of the companies was to pro-
vide complete station accommodation for all the traffic of the
respective companies, and any additional accommodation
which might be required.
The arguments, which have occupied the greater part of
two days, are not yet concluded.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAY.
81371.1413 Kr NW Pazue.—Drzoas LOW. CIUNZ JUTICI WILD 1 AND

Friout..lt, NIL

BLACKETEIL AND OTUFU v. EIiLTZYT.—RIGHT OF PERRY.
Mr. &quint Bytes and Mr. Picot were counsel for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., with whom was Mr.
Peacock, appeared for the defendant.
The declaration in this case set forth that the plaintiffs
wen the possessors of a certain ferry across the river Theme',
known as Potter's Ferry, and that the defendant had carried
loss across, contrary to the right of the plaintiffs. The
dalamlane pleaded, first, not guilty ; secondly, a denial of an
ant ferry ; and, thirdly, that the plaintiffs were not poi-
omen of the fern.
Mr. &inane Byles, in stating the cue to the jury, said
that the plaintiffs were certain trustees, representing the 83-
eisty of Free Waterman of the river Thames, and they in
their character of trustees owned a ferry, which had existed
from time immemorial, from the Isle of Dogs to Garden
stairs, Greenwich, and back. The first grant of the ferry had
taken place as early as the tenth year of the reign of
Charles the Fint. The ferry was originally for
hones, cattle, &a, but the plaintiffs now claimed
for foot passengers and their luggage only, the remaining
of the right having been given up to the Poplar and
portion
Greenwich Ferry Company, as appeared by the 52nd of
Oeo 111., cap. 148, see. 88. The ferry was formerly from the
Isle of Dogs to Greenwich and hack, but the plaintiffs now
merely sought to claim the right to convey p and
goods front the Isle of Dogs to Greenwich. This was in
consequence of a former action which had bent teed at
Maidstone in the summer of 1847, whin the right of the
plaintiffs had been found to be • right to a ferry from the
Isle of Dogs to Greenwich, but not back again. The plain-
tiffs now farther complained that the defendant had carried
across the river at such parts so as to infringe upon the rights
of the plaintiffs.
A vast mass of documentary evidence was then'produeed on
behalf of the plaintiffs, and several witnesses were called who
proved the existence of • ferry from the Isle of Dogs to
Greenwich for toot passengers and luggage to have existed
been exercised by the parties whom the plaintiffs repre-
sented for many years.
Mr. Id. Chambers then addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant Land contended that the right of ferry wee not
proved. The ferry claimed by the plaintiffs, according to
dale own case could only be a limited right of terry
her • certain place in the Isle of Dogs to
Onden-stairs, Greenwich, and not • right of ferry
le Greenwich generally. The nature of the right granted
by the deeds which the plaintiffs had put In evidence: and
the user, which had been proved, were quite inconsistent.
The deeds showed that the ferry wee a night and day ferry,
and the evidence proved that it was only used in the day
time. The ferry was not in the very first instance • hone
ferry, but by subsequent grants it had become so; bat it
was not shown that there existed any power in any one to
extend the right of ferry ; and, therefore, as the extends@
at the right of terry was bad, be (Mr. Chambers) submitted
that the title of the plaintiffs to the right of ferry
which they claimed was bad. In this awe there
wee no eresisteney between the documentary evidence and
the parol evidence. When the case was tried before at
Manton, an attempt was made to establish • ferry both
ways, which if the as of the plantifile mosey &good ans,they
must then have known to be en unfounded dos. TYee
bad not been the slightest evidence produced before the jury
to show that horse ferry, which it was said had formerly ex-
isted, had ever existed, because it had not been shown that
any one ever paid &sixpence as toll for horses or cattle. The
defendant was charged with having disturbed the ferry
of the plaintiffs on the 7th of April, 1849, and on
other occasions afterwards and before the commence-

meat of tlse amion. It hadnot, however, been proved
that the defendant had disturbed the ferry of the plaintiffs,
for he had only conveyed paseengen from Greenwich to a
place called Cubitis Corner in the Isle of Dogs which he
and a perfect right to do, as the right of ferry of the plain-
tiffs was from Potter's Ferry-house la the Isle of Dogs to
Garden-stairs, Greenwich. It was said, however, that the
defendant had gone so near the ferry of the plaintiffs as
to infringe upon their rights. Ile (Mr. Chambers) sub-
mitted that the defendant had a right to di this, inasmuch
es the plaintiffs only bad a limited right of ferry, and not a
general right of ferry from all parts of the Isle of Dogs to all
pans of Greenwich. In support of this proposition Mr
h►mben cited the cue of Tripp o. Fmk "(4 Term
Reports, page 466) Tee learned counsel concluded by say-
ing that his client was a very poor man whom the action
would ruin, and as the plaintiffs bad not proved their case,
he was entitled to the verdict of the jury.
The Lord Chief Justice in summing up left it to the jury
to say whether, the defendant had plied for hire on the river
Thames, and whether he had gone so near the ferry ci the
plaintiffs eats infringe upon tin it right.
The jury, after a short absence from court, returned with
a verdict for the plaintiffs, with t►e aoudad damages of Is.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YzerrERDAY.
Nut Pun.-85soaz Sia F. Pouues, C. 8., waa • DUDDIJ
COMION
VICILISS V BRITION —A Suit°Fon's BILL.

Mr. Haowles. QC. and Mr. Fuiiiii;;;,•a;i,;;•l for the
phintiff ; Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr. Hayes for the
defendant.
This WINS as Wl= brought by Mr. WOWS Randall
Vickers, a surgeon and gm er..l preetitioner in Baer-street,
Portman•sgamme, to recover forty pines for professional
sinjoes and snedielnes supplied to the defendant, who was a

retired solicitor. Iteppeared the defendant was 'evenly in-
jured by an aceidest on the Cheat Western Railway while
travelling Rom Maidenhead to London on the 2.4
of November, 1847. His jaw was fractured, several of his
teeth were br, ken, and he also suffered seriously from other
injuries and eontueions on various parts of his body. On
arriving at Slough the train was stopped and a surgeon
called in, to ascertain the extent of the injury. He was of
=het the upper put of the jaw should be removed
her, but the defendant having been previously under
the professional care of the plaintiff, desired again to have
temuree to him, and with that view he repaired at once to
London. The plaintiff examined the fracture, and, as the
malt proved, took a proper view of the ease, for the jaw
wee not amputated. The bones were so skilfully adjusted
that the organ was preserved, and has since
been as useful as ever. Mr. Bnipton remained in
the plaintiff's house for some days, until the violence
of the injuries had abated, and then be removed to lodgie gs
in Harley-street, and the Club chambers in Regent street,
where he was attended daily, frequently twice a day, by the
plaintiff, until he was perfectly recovered is February, 1848.
Mr. Liston, the late eminent surgeon, was also consulted,
and he highly approved of the plaintiff's treatment. In the
course of time the defendant commenced an scam against
the Great Western Railway Company, who offered him 3001.
as compensation for the injuries he bad sustained. However,
on the eve of the trial, it appeared in cons. Tuned of certain
inquiries made with respect to the dangerous symptoms with
which the defendant's wourds were attended sod the length
of time he had been under the plaintiff's care, the
company offered to pay 4001. and all the costs
which bad been incurred. It wee now suggested that that
offer bad been made under the impression that the plaintiff.
who had not then been paid, was entiled to liberal remunt -
ration, and that his bill would be very large. At length Mr.
Shipton, after having accepted the terms proposed by the
company, called for his bill. The plaintiff furnish. it, as was
his custom, in g I terms, stating the number of nttend-
alien, and that the amount was 381. 175., which, with a se-
parate charge for previous attendances, made up the sum for
which this action was brought. The defendant offered 161.,
which was refused, but when the action was brought he paid
251. into court, denying that he was further indebted. The
case was part heard on Monday, and resumed yes-
terday. It appeared the defendant tad so completely
recovered that he now suffered no permanent ie.jury
from the accident, erupt the lON of a few teeth, and some
alight traces of the lueration of his jaw. The defence urged
was, that the plaintiff's charges were excessive. and that
the money paid into court was ample remuneration for the
services rendered. The only medicines supplied were lotions
and draughts, and, according to the ordinary scale of
charges adopted by general practitioners in London, half •
guinea was all the plaintiff was entitled to for each attend-
ance, includ'un medicines. There had been 37 attendances,
for which he .harped 37 guineas. Several general prat-
titionan were examined on behalf of both parties; but
it appeared there was no general rule as to the scale
of charges They varied from 3s. 641. to 10s. ed., according
to the circumstances of the patient, the character of the com-
plaint, and the length or duration of the visit. Those chows
sometimes included medicine,. For Fun surgical eases the
charge was a guinea or two, but almost every 'general prac-
titioner had Lis own stale of charges. The only general role
seemed to be that " general practitioners never refused a
fee."
The Lord Chief Baron summed up the evidence minutely,
and left it to the jury to say whether the plaintiff was, nudge
all the circumstance,, entitled to more than the amount paid
into court es remuneration for hie services. The only rile
of law he would lay down for their guidance was, that thewas,
plaintiff wuentitled to fair manneristic!' according to the
usages of his profession. Itappeued 37 visits were admitted
to have been made, and by the evidence of sonic of the
mitts stes,37 guineas was by noUsans an extravagant charge
for tilt= Five shillings. was the usual charge, but it varied
and was, under some circumstances, a guinea The jury
should exercise their own judgment upon the entire case. He
should, however, remark that those who employed a me-
dical man and could pay, ought to Fay him the full price to
which he was entitled.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 401., 1 se the sum of 251, paid
into court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-YIBTERDAY.
Balms Ka. COMIIIIIIONIR Ilinaurp.

IN S 1 QOULL.

This was the first meeting for the proof of debts and choice
of assignees in the bankruptcy of R. H. Gould, described u
an iee-nierehaat, in the Strand. It is thought his liabilities
will amount to between 7,0001. and 8,0004 ; the assets are
estimated at 1,0001.
Hr. Duncan appeared for Mr. Loader and other creditor'.
On behalf of Mr. Loader he tendered a proo. for 1861. for
goods sold and delivered, which amount the bankrupt had
admitted to be due in his schedule filed in the Insolvent
Court._ _ . . . .

Mr. Plews, for tte petitioning creditor (Mr. Sherman),
admitted the correctness of the proof : also of one for 6001.
tendered by Mr. Duncan for Mr. N. P. Knowles, due on •
bill of exchange.
A great number of creditors were in attendance. Proofs to
the amount of about 4,0001. were placed on the file. The choice
of assignees was not contested ; Mr. Duncan supported Mr.
Loader, upholsterer, of the Pavement, Finsbury, who was
unanimously appointed trade usignee. The official assignee
is Mr. Groom; Mr. Butler, of Pancras lane, ia the ac-
countant.

. 1

Freeho'.d house, celled Hawthorn Cottag►. let for 251.,
with lease fur 999 years of one railway areb-3101.
Freehold tills, called Devonshire C dtage, let for 351.,
with lease for 9991 eats of two ercises-6701.
Frellvdd resi fence, celled Duelist's Villa, let for 501., with
lease for 999 years of two arches-9801.
Freehold house, called Oreetdield C Atage, estimated
value 251. per annum, with lease fur 999 years of two arches
—4501.
Plot of freehold land, with law for 999 years of two
arches-2201.
Freehold house. 6, Brunton-place, let at 71.-2101.
Freehold plot of lend, with frontage of 77 feet to the in-
tended street-2261.
Freehold plot, with frontages of 77 feet to the same street,
and 100 feet to the Faetory-rood-2401.
Freehold building site, with 67 feet frontage to the same
road-135k
A ditto, with 45 feet frontage to the said street-1551.
A ditto, 60 feet frontage-1601.
A ditto, 40 feet frontage-1351.
A ditto, 80 feet frontage-1401.
A ditto, with equal frontage of 45 feat to the two streets-
-1651.
A ditto, with frontages of 48 and 18 feet--2001.
Mr. R. hinting, at Garraway's.—Leasehold house, 5.
Birchin-lane, CJrnhill, held for 14 years from 1844 at 801.-
1851.
Leasehold house and premises, 23, Birchin-lane, producing
3151 per annum, held for 14 years from 1847 at 1431. rent
and tares-2601.

Peons the LONDON GAZETTE.—Tuesday, Dee. 4.

BANKRUETIL

GNOMON EVANS SAW, Deptford, grocer, and EIHOD.VOW, Dish-
street, Cameerwell, mLdarr, te surrender Dec. 4 and Jan. 15
at 1, at Baainghall.street. Sots., Tihon and Co., Coleman-stmt;
off. wig., Pennell. Guildhall.enambera
Wittaaw Lune BlextaT, ebettteld, innkeeper, Dee. 13 and Jan. 2G
at 12, at the feeds District Court held In aheiBeld ; Sole., Smalley
and Qalnatord, Sheffield ; off. amlg., Freeman, Sheffield.
JAMES Bows, The Crescent, Soutbwark-liridgeruad, hat menu.
restorer, Dee. 14 and Jan. 13 at I, at Basinshall-street.
Fraukhain, Moorgate.strect ; off. ussig., Groom, Abchureh-lane.
w 'are Evan. Cowan, Wart llam, Sussex, brickmaker, Dec. 10, r.t
121, and Jan. 21 al 11, at Basinghall.street. SoL, holden, Circa:t-
ared, Strand : off . amig., Graham, Coleman-street.
Joan Hawes, King William-street, City, hatter, Dee. 12 at 11, and
Jan. 13 at 12, at Basinghall-street. hot., liohner, Bridge-street,.
Southwark; off. amis., Stansteld, Bminghall.atrert.
JOHN Pease, Criekdrale, Wiltshire, draper, Dee. 14 and Jan. 15 at 2,
M Basingball-street. Sol., JOHAN hice-lane, Burklersbury ; off.
tiesig., Edwards, Sambrook.court.
Jona Rounotor, rortwood, Cheshire, cotton spinner, Dee. 17 and Jan.
17 at 12, at Mancheoer Court. SQL, Mnkinaoa, Manehester ; off.
oasis., Fraser, Manchester.
WHAJAN Sremar, Leeds, wool dealer, Des. 17 and Jan. 14 at 11, at
Leads Wart. bola, Caries and Cudworth, Lade; off. emir., Mope,
Leeds.
Wikuam Weals, Inwardleigh, Devonshire, edgetoolmsker, Des. 12
and Jan. gat IL at Exeter Court. tick., !Surd, Crkehampion, and
Terrell, Exeter ; eff. sesig., Hirteel, Exeter.