The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-17 00:00:00

NAVAL.

-
Phoolosootit. Mash 111.-11alemehhe, etwisea Oths. Simmer%
armed
17. It va Optima Ile tooniga:t.h.Aghp=l the4B :s titan to
the MI *is
day, at II p.qh. So Ilholoplihi.t=eft aim low bow
tar her reeria loom
It Is mom* veherloil thoteeselet tidos onto Wittig hp Ste the
=4.1 ankle at mei porameemt yard, and amortise tad
.in the aory ore to sepplehert the ateheemost al the
Munn die at bort
01 ILIT AZT.
Peoreocorry, Moss hi—Droas toss lho Womb. mph trom
arlle Ids et Wight Ifflogolor, ere Need II •Jo fa the motes
c—lhmh net Begah. emit AA Iletssee. Canal' ;
, 10q, rl Min& NM to ism slow heir Bait, to Her.
Amy 45th. Itlho Owe; eol 11114 *the llearlese.

tab) Maims:.

ROUSE OF LORDS.
Penis the Lord Chancellor,
Flatbed
Lord Brougham, Lord Camptril, and
Lard
BARRETT AND °TRURO P. TER STOCKTON AND DAR-
LINOTON RAILWAY COMPANY.—CHAROES FOR TRANSIT
OP COALS at RAILWAY.—ThiS was an appeal from a de.
cree of the Vice-Chancellor of England. The appellants
directors and shareholders of the Joint Stock County
Dashers Coal Company. For the transit of orals sent by
them by the Stockton and Darlington Railway, and by the
Clarence Railway (of which the respondents are directors
and shareholders) to Port Clarence for exportation, the re-
spondents claimed payment at the rate of 21d. per ton per mile,
under provision of their acts of parliament. The appellants
were unwilling to pay more than id. per ton per mile.
This dispute between the parties began in 1838, and it was
rarerabetweenthemthat theappellants should continnetopay
the former charge, under protest, and without prejudice to
their right to recover the excess. In the event of their sac.
ceediag in an action, which they were then to bring, to try
I whether the former or latter sum was the proper parlia-
mentary charge. A special verdict was found in that action,
and, upon the discussion on it in the Court of Common Pleas,
it wee decided tlUt the sum of id. per ton per mile for transit of
theappellente' web was the proper charge under the acts for
araranetion of the maid railways. The respondetits brought
a write error on tt at Judgment in the Court of Exchequer
Chandra, and failing in obtaining. a reversal there, they
!ikt their writ of error the Trait of
was an affirmance, pa. the Coast
or.'M MI Aft Flees. Pending te preceediage at law,
and before the hat writ of error was brezStg.,
synaliente filed their. bill in Chancery, the
rameedings at taw, and that notwithstanding the j t
there in favour of the appellants, the respondents relaxed to
redasd the ramie of the sums paid by the appellants, beyond
die 0. per ton, per mile. The respondenta put in their
ear wet,rad alleged that of the sum before claimed by them for
tramsid. weetrahaulage of the coals, and other services rms.
dared by them to the appellants in the transit of their coals.
Semeal seders rare made in the cause by thelrice-Chancellor,
in perseasee strati* the imam conetiturag the emu between
the essablithed perilarnentary charge, and the charge of 21d.
were paid, bet into a bank, and part afterwards into court,
and vested In • the public funds to abide the decree. By
the deem made in the cause, after this house gave judg-
ment ea the writ of error, the Vice-Chancellor ordered
all sura paid by the appellants to be paid
back, under reduction not only of the id. per ton,
for the transit, but another id. per ton for haulage of the
wale ; and his honour also ordered the appellants to pay the
vespondeste their eons in the cause, on the ground that the
watt terand eneeasary, and the filing of the bill was prema-
brae Mims& se all matters in dispute would have been
theaction if the appellants hadwaited for the final
*MK
awl Mai Mr. Faber. In support of the appeal Sera
that drasksentanded, tint, that the drags for haulage WM
inadmissible ; h was sewn trend ia the preerallage is as
ration, nor in the dieninte.ralidi pre dm M the ration'
secondly, that the kraal wide& amened ht the antra pail
into court, and vested in'the funds, en* to have bum de.
creed to belong to the appellants, to wham the prralpel was
decreed ; and, thirdly, that there was no ground at all to
saddle the appellants, the successful party in the cause, with
the eras of the brag party.
Mr. Bradt, with whom was Mr. Smythe, for the
ran, argued that the appellants were property ekvgad with
the oats of the suit, as they filed their bill prematurely and
unart:Zsarilylaqw.dio.,
"thlpyinurautthad.thHutheweeitedi
diwaa.p;iffe,:tilitaaiitilsejeutiul7:tad
wetenhath:raeninreddthnotildericeSallhin:
to that was in effect admitted by the appellants' reading, and
therebyanswth.erisumt.rea*Pliaglating.h.t4, t:Hebeiemwt:gaeri:urinZgtheottitocPrgthu, other point, ,thi
hearing was adjourned to Thursday next.