The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-02 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.-YESIERDA T.

I:11W: ill, 1.1.411 D. *11.1.. %MEAL
Tun Arrowier-UrN.aut. v. TUC Silk/MILD GAS

Cl/ha MIS. CoxraxT.

This was aa inform itiuo and b:11 filed at the instance of
the Sheffield United Or Company fur the purpose of rib-
taMirig an ii.juecrien res•raining the defendaet. from laying
duals, my gas ruins or pipes, or other works, in or under
the An. ts or highw ijs or th • Imrough of Sheffield, end
from bre iLiag up. or d;-*urhica for that purpeee, the road
or p mesa nt of tl.e said streets or highway!, mail from
doing any other net whereby the iiisisalgi- of her Majesty'.
otilikete :16 ,lig the said suer es or bighe-ays shall be in any
respiret tili-truetul on nz.ili rid ler rate or convenient, or
whereby the gait retina or pipes? or other works, of the
plaiatiifs may be in any way imam!. It appeared that
the plisiatiff.' the Sheffield trilled flis Company,
hal beau funned by. the amalgamation of two gas
companies, firs:only having a d'Airset existence at Sheffield,
and cad. of whir+ was furcirporated by an act of parlia-
meat, •rivint rowers to break up the pavement of the
beeram.th, awl containing 'Trial provision. for compensating
dameges which Arid be occanuned by that proceeding.
The two tome/ compisaire were amalgamated by act of
tartifice, iv in 1941. The defendant.' company was pra-
eted in DAL rid completely registered in February,
rid. Th. it deed of sidemen! was comp!, rely registered
la March last, and castrated pv3'140131 empowering the di-
re ctors ot the comp:toy to indemnify Vie authorities against
any indictments, eerier., or suits, which might be conse-
quent upon the proceedings of the company. In April,
1432, the defendants alleging that they hall been authorised
to commence their works by the parish boards,
prneineleil to bresk up the pavements fur the
purpose of laying down their mains. The present bill
and infurmatima was then hied, in which it was alleged that
the defenders:. by their proceedings were trenching upon,
and interfering with, the pewees ;peen to the plaintiffs by
their several acts ; all also infringing the provisions of the
generil Oa. Company Act, as to the breaking up of pave-
ments; that sorb procreuings on the pert of the defendants
would he attended with greet injury to the highways, from
laying dews the pipe., awl flues the constantly recurring
neemedi of taking up the pavements for the purpose of
repairing the pipes and emir, unrcessarily added by the
new company; and that, in addition to this nuisance or
public injury, the plaintiffs , the United Company, were
ouriteiningdantage arising from injury done by the defend-
ants to their pipe which have bens already laid down in
the at. of Sh., effield, in the various modes pointed
out by the bill. A motion fur an injunction was rude in
the first instance before Vice-Chancellor ruiner, by whom
it was refused, and upon appeal before the Lords Justices
in August last, thu Vice-Chancellor's judgment was:in
suhstance affirmed. It was soon afterwards proposed to
make a new motion before the Vice-Chancellor upon addi-
tional evidence as to the defendants' proceeding', but, by
permission of their lordships, it was arranged between the
parties that the evidence in the cause should be completed
and the minion end hearing ba brought on together, and
be disposed of at once by this court.
Mr. Lull, Mr. Amphiett, end Mr. Overend (of the com-
mon law bar) appeared in support of the plaintiffs' case.
Mr. Daniell, Mr. Terrell, and Mr. Login appeared for the
defendants.