The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-06 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 6, 1849.

but the View Chancellor ordered the irjancti-n first and the
action afterwerfs.
Mr. Be. hell, Mr Roll, and Mr. Rogers wire heard in sup-
port of the injunction. The i r.j ary to the plaintiff's house-
hold, cat le, and property generally, the impurity of the
waters timing in kW streams from the deienden.'s esta-
blishment, wa. too a- Ats to admit of postponement of hi
remedy until an action could be tried. B.t.ides th. re was
aorqght to be established. The plantar wea unquestionably
owner of the property through which the streams ran, and
there was no doubt that the water was corrupted.
The Lord Chanoellor rose before the argument was
dabbed.

Boom Vteliffieidecss.tos /Doom Bare,.
SIRIIWINORY AND CllllBl2l RAILWAY COMPANY V.
CNWITiII AND ROLYMRAD RAILWAY COMPANY,
MRAD, LANCAIMINIL AND Cummins JUNCTION RAILWAY
COMPANY, AND LONDON AND NORTH WISTIIIN RAILWAY
ConiPanv.—Cnainfin STATION.
The arguments upon this motion for an injunction, the
material facts =to which were stated tin yesterday's
&woes, were
Mr. Rowell sad Ur. Willeoek, for the Chester and Holy-
head Railway Company, contended that the station com-
mittee had not exceeded, their powers as to the management
of the station in preventing the plaintiffs from competing
unfairly with their cowmen in the use of the station by
esrrfis passengers at ruinously low fares to place! beyond
this Mute of the Shrewsbury and Chester line, while at„
mem *se. as regarded that line, which alone the agree
between the companies regarded as that of the plaintilk
they distended as high or higher than the other companies
Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Glasse, for the Chester Bir-
kenhead Junction Company, contended that the plaintiffs
were duly represented at the meeting of the 13th of Novem-
ber, and were bound by the resolutions then passed. This
plaintiffs' act did not enable them to carry puseegere from
Chester to Birkenhead by °melbas from the station. Is the
first instance, the plaintiffs had applied to the Birkenhead
Company to coalesce with them and book passengers through
to Wolverhampton, in opposition to the North Western Com-
pany, and to lower their tarts with that view. The Birken-
head Company refused to accede to ouch a course, and it was
on that account that the omnibuses had been set up against
them by the plaintiffs. The Birkenhead Company had con-
tributed • large sum of money to the building of the station,
with seism of having the conveyance of passengers from
Chester to Birkenhead, and yet the plaintiffs came here and
asked that they might um the station to defeat this fair ob•
Pet of the ;Birkenhead Company. The plaintiffs alleged
that the Birkenhead Company would not carry the
plaintiffs' purtuogen, except at times and at fares amounting
to a prohibition from the use of the line. This
allegation was wholly unfounded, inasmuch as there were
ten trains a day, and the Birkenhead company had
ofescat to ran two more, et such times as would suit the
plebetiffit. And es to the farm demanded
,by the
Birkeakeed Company, they were actually at lower
rate than Abase of the plaintiffs on their own
line from Chester to Shrewsbury. There was therefore no
pretence for saying that the interests of the plaintiffs re.
quire 4 them to carry passengers by omnibus, in cppoahioa
to their pennon in the station. The admission of omnibuses
into stations was essentially the subject of management of
the station, and must be left to the committee. It was by
no means ea universal, or even a general custom, for omni-
buses to be admitted within stations. The motion must also
fail, on the ground that it asked the court to interfere in
the management of • partnership concern, without any
case being made out of destruction or exclusion.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Follett, for the London and North
Western Railway Company, contended that the agree-
ment, by the expression " complete station accommodation,"
only meant such accommodation as was required for the
purposes of the plaintiffs' line from Chester to Shrews-
bury, and was not meant to extend to affording item
the means of sonoying and prejudicing the other parties to
the contract, by booking to places without those limits at
tares which could yield no rem tion„ but must occasion
positive lose. (The Vice-Chancellor—The case which the
plaintiffs urge Is that, according to the resolutions of the
committee, they must, if they want to book a passenger front
Chester through Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton, take an-
other station for that purpose.) Their doing so was never
contemplated by the agreement. That the accommoda-
tion afforded to them was to be limited to the purposes
of the Chester and Shrewsbury line appears from the
different proportions in which the companies con-
tribeted to the expense of the station. If the
plaintiffs were to use it for every purpose, why
were they to contribute less than the London and North
Western Company t If it had been considered that the
plaintiffs would have engaged in a ruinous opposition to the
other parties to the agreement, the agreement would never
have beets entered into. The fares charged by the plaintiffs
showed that mere annoyance wee their object. On their
own line, from Chester to Shrewsbury. 421 miles, the (arcs
were Bs. and 7a. for the let and 2nd den respectively, while
the fare whisk they demanded from passengers tor the
whole distance from Liverpool to Birmingham (upwards of
100 miles) were 10e (or the Ist class, and 7s. 6d. for the 2nd,
including the emelbus and the ferry, being charges of Is. in
ear ilNle and dd. is the other, for the extra distance. Could
wet a gesessilkis be considered one tho furtherance
of whisk owe within the fair meaning of " complete
stalks amensmodationi" or ought the committee, which re-
hired to emelisa it, be subjected to the injunction now
ought ? Wde impose to the emaibuss, them was no evi-
dence to show that it was a nsinniary or usual portion of the
ameommedatiam of a railway station to admit those convey-
sates within it, and experience whet proved the contrary
labs the are. The question was not as to the public, which,
boverver, esald not be ultimately benefited by such a course
es
that adapted by the plaintiffs. The only parties before
the wart were the companies themselves, between whom
and on whose interests alone the court had to decide.
The Vim Chancellor—ln a case where two distinct mil-
lirem belonging to two distinct companies communicate with
each other, fall into each other, continue each other, and the
two companies are willing to agree to book pusengers re-
eiprocelly kr the whole journey upon reasonable and proper
tents, ir the affairs of either company are regulated and con-
cluded in such a manner that that company has not the
means, has not the power of giving effect to that operation
by booking in the =anew that I have mentioned, I em of
opinion that the affairs of such company are conducted in a
n. tuner not only inconvenient to the public, not only preju-
dicial to the interests of the company, but contrary to what
the evidence and the nature of the subject convince ate is
the ordinary and proper course of arrangement of railway
business. Viewing that matter, am I have said, in consider-
ing the resolutions of 1847 uthii case, lam of opinion that
the resolutions of the station committee of November last, so
fax as they prevent that from being done, are resolutions in
emcees of their power, are wrongful resolutions, and ought,
es to their effect, to be prohibited by injunction. As to that
part of the case, the only question is uto the manner of
wording the order. What I have said, however, has no rela-
tion to say point or question as to the admission of public
esaveyances into the station, as to which, or any other part
of the can
e,'_ I am ready to hear the plaintiffs' counsel.
Mr. Mlaa, in reply, contended that complete station ac-
eammedation would not be afforded by bringing passengers
into the station, without affording them the means of pro-
ceeding thence with their luggage wherever they required
to go.
The Vies Chancellor—l am not satisfied that the hairiness
of a railway company cannot well and reasonably be carried
on without the admission of conveyances into the station. I
am not satisfied that it is a rule or custom of these companies
generally to admit conveyances of this description within the
station. It appears to me that the whole matter of the ad-
mission of public conveyances is a matter of management,
and that the committee have not in this respect exceeded
their powers. The injunction must be confined to
restraining the defendants from interfering with or disturb-
ing the plaintiffs' station accommodation at the joint station
at Chester ; and from doing any act restricting the plaintiffs
in the enjoyment of such complete station accommodation as
is itecessery for their traffic, and from preventing or preclud-
ing the plaintiffs own servants and clerks, or the joint ler.
vents and clerks of the defendants and plaintiffs, from brak-
ing at the joint station, and in the ordinary joint hooking
office, which has hithert• been used, and in the ordinary or
usual manner, either goods or passengers, beyond the limits
of the plaintiffs' railway, whether to Wolverhampton use
otherwise. This is kw the language of the notice of
motion. Then commences what II propose to add, which is
as follows, " provided that such hooking be for a journey or
journeys by railway, and be by the joint servants or clerks,
or by some clerk or servant, or clerks or Mesa% to be ap-
proved of by the plaintiffs end the general station eon-
mines." That will wipeout the istroduetien of any sudal
dark or servant. What I mesa is, not to leave the p! tiff!
an inNodted power of introducing a clerk. The station mew
WON, ea the other hand, might appoint a verso, not •
Joint clerk, end yet a person not acceptable to the plaintiffs.
Mr. J. Parker asked for the 001411 of the Birkenhead
Immense Company, bat
The Vice-Chaneellee reserved them.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YrmanAy.
1111117111.11 AT Nia Pam-8 mm Ma. Awn= WIGATYAT AND
&sew. Irmo.
. _

TIM QI7IIK O. 1111110N:MiLLZOki PIOOIIHATION
GOVZI.IOIKIIT OFPICEI.

This was as inflita;eategainit—--iiiiiiisa Cl. Mahon for
unlawfully contrasting with a puma of the name of Paxton
to proems fat him the *Moe of clerk in the Ordnance, and
far recetriag the sum of 11W. for procuring such office.
The Attoesoj-General and Mr. Welsh, appeared for the
'rows. . .

As moea as the indictment had been opened,
Mr. Cockburn, on the part of the defendant, said that he
nu instructed to admit all the facts, and to submit to a ver-
dict of frailty.
A verdict of guilty was wsoordingly taken, and the cue
terminated.

POLLIIIT V. CHRSTIZTON.- ACTION AGAINST TN[ Go-
TIMOR OF COLDRATH-FIRLD• HOD[' Or CORRECTION Fon
CI7STODY OF • PRISON= COIMITTID 11T • J 01.101 411
• COUNTY COURT. _ _ _

This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment
against George Laval' Chesterton, the governor of Coldbeth-
fields House of Correction. The pleas were, not guilty, and
two pleas ofjustificatioa, to the offset that he was acting
ander the warrant of • judge of the county court. These
plea had hula demurred to, and the only issue now to be
tried was that of sot guilty.
Mr. Edwin James, with whom we. Mr. O. Rochefort
Clarke, mid that the plaintiff appeared in this action in
form vesper* to:al( • press violation of the liberty
of his wow The emplaned that the defendant,
tYe gemmee of C prim, had illegally impri
mei him, and treated hint with every species of personal
indignity, without belnijnedied in law, and Mr. cluster-
don defended Mason on the ground that he wu justified in
point of law. Mr. Polls% VIM we. a clerk on the flouti:
Western Railway, had boas sod la aMr. Ridingtoc, in the
Whitedmpel County Comet. Me a mint if X. 195., the quo-
tion in disputebetween them beherbeeter Mr. Pallets was
entitled to deduct from sauna of mosey he had collected for I
lomat of as MIIOQ, Th• plain