The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-25 00:00:00

Before the Ileeter.et the Rofla

COLMAN E. TH• BAIOHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.—IN-
30NCTION TO REST/LUX THE PATATLIEHMENT OP THE
"herrn Samaas-Pacitirts.—This motion was founded on the
principle laid down by the Master of the Rolls, in " Colman
e. the Eastern Ci.untics Company," already reported in this
paper, that a railway company could not apply or pledge its
fends (or the establishment of a steam.packet company in con-
nexion with the railway unless power for that purpose was
speaa: Ily given by parliament. It appeared that the Brighton
Company contemplated the establishment of a steam-packet
company called the Brighton and Continental Steam-packet
Company, to run packets, in connexion with the Brighton
Railway, between Brighton and Dieppe. The plaintiff,
who was the Londe* agent of the Grosral Steam Naviga-
tion Company, and a shareholder in tho Brighton Company,
applied for an injunction to restrain the execution by the
Brighton Railway Company of any agreement by which this
object should be carried ont.—Mesars. Turner and Twells
appeared for the plaintiff. —Mr. Kinderiley (with whom was
r. R. Palmer) said that as the same principle was involved
in this case as in that of Colman v. The Eastern Counties
Railway Company," nod there was, therefore, no use in
arguing the question, he would, on the part of the defen-
dants, consent to an injuncti.in.—Accordingly an order was
taken by consent to restrain the defendants from entering
into any agreement for guaranteeing a dividend to the pro-
jected Steamq'acket Company, and from applying the funds
or pledging the credit of the railway company for the pur-
pose. of the steam packet company.

Before Vice-Chansenor wigrion.
111:0111.11 e. WI; LIAMS.—PRACTICIL—In this ease the
time for paring publication expired on the 7th January, on
which day the plaintiff was served with a warrant by one of
the defendants to attend before the Master upon an applies.
tion to enlarge publication. On the 11January the
Master, at the instance of that defendant, and without notice
to the other del. ndam, made
an nedt r enlarging publication
till the 20th of February; notwithstanding which the de-
fendant. in whose absence the order had been made, on the
9th of February. after a cerre•pandenee upon the subject
with the plaintiff, m the e,urse of which notice was given to
him of the order to enlarge, obtained an order for setting
the cause down for hearing.
Mr. Wood, for the plaintiff, now moved that that order
might be discharged for irregularity, as having been ob-
tained before public lion passed.
Mr. Feeding, for the defendant, at whose instance the
cause had been set down, contend d that the order was
regular. At th expiration of the time allowed fur that
purpose by the prnet:ee of the court, that Is, on the 7th of
January, publication passed as of course, and from that time
the Master's jurbe'iction was gone. The order of the 11th
of January was, therefore, a mere nullity, which the de-
fendant was entitled to disregard.—Mr. Chandlers, for the
other defendant, spied for his costs.
His Honour, alter observing that the order to enlarge
appatred to be one the regularity of which it would be diffi-
cult to maintain, s id that it was not necessary, however, to
decide upon the gurstion o. juritalie• ion. The order to en•
large had clearly been made, aNd the authorities showed that
a s ,honor of the taw t, with n titre of the order, Lod no right
while it existed to treat it ea a nullity.—Hia Honour then
discharged the ovl• r f r setting down the cause, with coats to
be paid by the party who bad obtained it.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH—Orlin/mu..
•ore Lord Denman and a epeeist) Jury.
ORRIN VrTHE ST. KATHERINA'S DOCILE COMPANY.—
DENIDIAL •ThEx OP A DOCK COMPANY CARRYING ON Tait
BUSINESS OP WARIMOUSEMAN AND WHAMPINOER.—
Sir F. Kelly, Q.C., Mr. Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. Devitt, ap-
peared for the plaintiffs in this ens*, who are the assignees of
Reay sod Co., bankrupts the defendants were represented
by Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Peacock. It appeared, that
for same time previoudy to the bankruptcy of Measra. Reny
and Co., as well while the firm consisted of Mr. Reay, gen.
only, as after the admission of Mr. Reay, jun., into partner-
ship with his uncle, the company had allowed wines to be
taken out of the docks on account of that firm without pay-
ment of the dock dues and charges. At the time of the
bankruptcy there was in tlo vaults of the company belong-
ing to Maur. Remy and Co., a large quantity of wines on
which the company claimed to have • lien fur a sum little
short of 7,0001. The assignees insisted that the lien
of the company was confined to a sum of 1000/.,
the amount of the dues payable on the wines
then actually in the dock*, and did not extend
to the dual which the firm might owe for wines which
had been suffered to be taken from the docks without pay-
ment of the dock charges thereon ; and that, at all events.
toe lien of the company on goods the property of the firm, as
constituted at the time of the bankruptcy, did not extend to
charges for wines that had been the sole property of Mr.
R! ay, senior. After some negotiation an agreement was
entered into, by which the wipes were released on payment
of the whole sum claimed by the company, the direetorspro-
mising to refund so much ria in an action ageing them, to re-
cover the dues on the wines seta out without pas ment of
dues, it should he deli' relined that they were not entitled to re-
Min. In pursuance of that agreement this action was brouiht,
and the questions raised were,—l. Whether there existed a
custom in London fur a warehnumeman and wharfinger to
have a general lien on goods committed to his rare,
under which be might treat goods in his powession as
securities fur dues left unpaid on goods no longer in
his possession. ed. Whether that custom applied to
companies as well as individuals. 3rd. Whether in point
of fact Mr. Remy, jun., had been • partner in the firm;
and 4th. Whether any or all of the charges made by the
company were such as under the St. Katherine's Docks
Act, the company was entitled to impose rut wharfage and
xarehouse dues. The chief feature in the • videnee was tho
testimony of Alderman Ilutophtry, end Mr. Feiting, to
the existence of the custom eh !Ye described. At the close
of the case, and after some discussion between the counsel
as to the best mode of raising the questions of law, for the
determination of the court, Lord Denman left it to the jury
to my whether they thought that there existed in London
the custoln on which the defendants relied; if they thought
that it did, he was of opinion that it applied to companies
is well us individual*, arid was good in law. If they found
that the custom existed, it would he for them to say whither
the charges were such as properly fell within the description
of dues for wharfage and warehousing, in other words, how
much the defendants were bound to refund. The jury, after a
brief deliberation, returned a verdict nominally for the
plaintiff!, but virtually for the defendant', with damages,