The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-02 00:00:00

lain Enteittgenct.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
limas TRMCEARCILLOS
THE NANCETATEE, finerrteLn, AND LINCC
RAILWAY COMPAST C. IRE GREAT NORTHERR SAW.
WAY CONEART.
His Honour gave judgment in this case, which was a
motion for an injunction to restrain the defendants from
taking any further proceedings under certain notion
served upon the plaintiffs by the defendants in May and
June last, and by which they sought to purchase under the
compulsory powers of their act a certain piece of land form-
ing part of the plaintiffs' railway. The application was
llmt the defendants might be restrained from proceeding
In levee their summons for a jury to mamas the value of the
innal, and from doing or causing or permitting to be done
my act, matter, or thing for the purpose of compelling a
rah of the land by the plaintiffs, or of obtaining possession
tlbstuof, or in any way intereferinq with the possession and
Awe use and enjoyment thereof by the plaintiffs. It
appeared that the:Great Northern Company obtained their
net in June, DM, and were empowered thereby to pur-
chase the piece of land in question, for the purposes of their
undertaking. On the 3rd August, 1846, the company, re-
presented by the :plaintiffs, obtained their act, and were
also empowered thereby to take the piece of land in quer '
tion. In May, 1847, the company, represented by the
plaintiffs, purchased such piece ottani' under the powers of
their net, and having obtained a conveyance thereof from
the Eft Itetford hospital, then, in 1849, constructed their
railway upon it. In June, DCVO, the Great Northern com-
pany, with the view of crowing the plaintiffs' :line at the
piece of land in question, served a notice upon the plaintiffs,
requiring them to summon a jury to assess the value
thereof. The plaintiffs then made the present motion,
which was argued on the 21th June last by Mr. Bethel],
Mr. Matins, and Mr. O. L. Russell on behalf of the plain-
tiffs; and by Mr. Itolt and Mr. Denison on behalf of the
defendants. The details of the arguments appeared in the
Express of the Fish June.
Honour, in delivering his judgment, said the injunc-
tion appeared to be resisted on several grounds. First, it
was spiel that the original right to purchase the land in
question was vested by their act in the Great Northern
Company ; that the plaintiffs must be considered to have
purchased the land subject to that right, and that the de-
fendant, were therefore now entitled to purchase the land,
or, at all events, to cross the plaintiffs' line thereat.
Secondly. it was said that this was a mere con-
test of legal rights, and that no case had been suggested
for the interference of a court of equity. Thirdly, it was
said that an agreement with reference to the use of crossings
had been entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants,
the existence of which precluded the plaintiffs from relict
in a court of equity; and, fourthly, it was said that the in-
convenience to arise to the defendants from a stoppage of
their proceedings by injunction would be so great that if
the court should not at once give its decision upon the ques-
tion it ought at all events to permit the defendants to
proceed iu the meantime to cross the plaintiffs' line.
Upon the first point be (the Vice-Chancellor) was
of opinion that the question was clearly a legal
question ; it was one of immense importance to the
pasties, and not altogether free from difficulty. It
had been drawn into this court merely from the necessity of
the assistance of this court to preserve the rights of the
parties. Upun that question he did not hesitate to say that
he was desirous of the assistance of a court of law, more es-
pecially as what had happened in the present ease, might
also have happened in other cases, so that the rights of
other parties might be affected by the result of a decision
upon the question in the preent ease, namely, the legal
question as to what was the effect of two acts of parliament
relating to the same subject, and conferring the same right
in reference thereto, upon different parties. Upon the
second point he felt no difficulty. He thought there was sa-
p fieient ground !Indic in:erference of the court by injunction.
The third point—namely, that relating to the existence of
ar. agreement—be thought not tenable. It was distinctly
stated by the affidavits in reply that the plaintiffs had given
, notice to the defendants of their intention to determine the
agreement of April, 1818, and this statement was not contra-
dicted by the defendants' affidavits in answer. Ile could
not think a court of equity would be justified in withhold-
ing its interference on the ground merely that an agreement
was stated to be in existence, which, however, was al-
leged to have been tletermiued,:ind which no attempt had
been made to enforce. With respect to the fourth
point, viz. what should be done in the meantime
till the trial of the right, he thought, having regard to the
fact that the legal interest was in the plaintiff., that no case
hail been made by the defendants for the interference of
the court. The injunction would therefore go; and the de-
fendants might, if they pleased, take a case to a court of
law upon the three questions—first, whether the defendants
were or not entitled to purchase and have is conveyance of the
piece of Land in question ; secondly, whether they were
entitled to cross the plaintiffs' line : and, thirdly, whether,
U they were so, they were entitled to cross the line on a
level or not. The parties would have liberty to apply.

JENE 30.
Brrnar. LARD CILANWORTII (TlR•CotorrELrnt).
EOEUToN r. BILOWNII.OIr.--CO,OITIOATIoN or TM
WILL Or THE DEICE OP BEIDOEWATER.

The question in thin cage arisen under the will of the late
Earl of Bridgewater, dated in March, 1823, by which the
testator gave the greater portion of his property to the use
of the Right Hon. John Hume Cust, commonly called Lord
Viscount Alton', for the term of 99 yeas, if he should no
long live, with remainder to the heirs male of his body.
The will also contained a proviso that if the said Lord
Alford should die without having acquired the title of Duke
or Marquis of Bridgewater, then the estate limited to his
heirs male should cease, and lie absolutely void. Lord
Alford not having acquired the said title, the plaintiff, who
is his eldest son, tiles this bill, claiming to be equitable
tenant in tail of the estates.
The arguments in support of a demurrer to this bill were
nut concluded at the rising of the court.

coula OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAT.
kil RUNGS AT !CAI AIRS AT GVILMIALL—BArote LORD CARrOW.S. L
A Comm. JOLT.
THE QUEEN r. BROWN.

This was an indictment, on the Nth and 9th Viet. 106, a.
17, for cheating at cards on the 23n1 of ]anuses last.
It appeared from the evidence on the part of the prose cu-
lion, that on the day in question a ball was given ,t the
London Tavern, Ili•hopigare-street, in aid of the funds of
the Licensed Victuallers. The company was admitted by
ticket, and several strangers were present. Among other!
amwements it appeared that some of the party wereplaying
at whist, when the defendant Brown and two others, who
were strangers, were observed to enter. They went up to
the whist table, and defendant after seating him-
' self near the table. proposed that the game should
be changed to leo, whica was done. Several
played at the game, which was continued from 6 to 6
hours Amongst those that played were Mr. Whitehead,
Mr. Young, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Ireland, the defendant, and
his two friends. The defendant was the chief winner. Be
was observed by Bennett to put, when he was not playing,
a card at the back of his neck, and when that suit came to
be trumps he took the card out and played it. Ile was seen
to do this seven or eight times. Bennett left off playing,
and watched. Ile saw him put the ace of spades in his
collar. Two or three deals intervened when spades were
not trumps, but when they were he played it. Mr. Bennett
had communication with lilr.Whitehead, who then watched,
and saw the defendant put a card behind his neck. Clubs
were trump.; and while defendant was drawing the card,
which proved to be the ace of clubs, out of his neck, White-
head seized it in his hand, and called out, " Gentlemen,
you are playing with a ' blackleg.' " There was then
great confusion. The gentlemen seized the money on the
table, the king of hearts fell from Brown's sleeve, and he
endeavoured to shuttle the cards altogether. A policeman
was sent for, and the defendant was taken into custody.
Mr. Chambers, oa behalf of the defendant, submitted
I that then: was no evidence to go to the jury, as no particu-
lar coin of any one person alleged in the indictment to be
' defrauded was shown to pass to the defendant ; but
Lord Campbell thought there was evidence on all the
counts.

Mr. Chambers then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant. who returned a verdict of guilty on all the counts.
In reply to an application from Mr. tierjeant Wilkins,
Lord Campbell said be thought it his duty to pass imme-
diate judgment. It was a mist scandalous case, and the
s..eteure of the court w,:± that the defendant shou be jut-
prisoneu for two years aMI Mal ki ; awl at the cuu of
that period should tind two sureties in SOL each for his good
behaviour for two years.