The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-21 00:00:00

MILITARY.

'Bursar Corer lifsartara.—On thturrlay mcrning a general
court-martial assembled at Portmm-street Barracks, compceed of the
officers of the Brigade of Guards, with Col. Sir 0. Ifonvman, of the
2nd lht. Grenadier Gums!, n. president, when private I. Buckley, of
No. 4 Nom. 2nd Bit. Coldstremn Guards, was brought to trial fur
highly insubordinate conduct, and striking Serjeant Ilacilam, of the
same rest , wl..en in Cie eireution of his duty. The iinding of the
court, and its protemlings wilt not bs made known until the em at-
martial is finally appriv,sl of by her Majesty and his grace the (dun-
mander-in-Chief. On the mum mornind the proceedings of a district
court-martini were read to the 3rd Bat. Gren. Guards, on the Military.
Parole, Tower of London, on Private J. Orton, of No. 3 mammy,
who been tried flu de-4 r don. The smart wintenced the prisoner to
suidergii three mint& imprisonment, with hard labour, at the
Military Prison, Cluithtim. On the same morning, the 2nd Bat. Cold-
atremu Guards, stationed at Portman-strict Barracks, were as
in square, to beat the minutes of a court-martial read on Lance-serj.
Spencer awl Corp. Reeve, of that battalion, who have been tried by a
district courtmortial for neplect of duty, by allowing a prisoner under
their charge to get drunk. The evidence having been beard for and
against the prisoners, the court came to the (allowing tlegislcn : That
Lance-serj. Spencer was not guilty, who was therefore acquitted ;
and Corp. Reeve was found guilty, and sentenced to be reduced to the
rank and pay of a private soldier.

SPORTING.
117.TTING AT BLANCllliifEa7Fninty.

Corvrrn Cie.-1000 to 2., apt Crim. Con. t...ken), and arterwards
offered; nothing else baekcd, but ranch inqu,_tod after at 1000 to 15
—a very Law entry evrected.
Dustar.-1,000 to 23 apt Red Hart (taken several times during
the week) —latest offer 3.1 to 1. Offers ot 8 tr, lon the Feld.
BELFORD COUII6INti EETN
_ _ 1
*-- '

..... .....
THE Cu ALLEM CAA: r ixs ',dogs) were won by Mr. Wood's Warm ley;
Mr. Fulveus' Cedric run up.

latn EnteUtgenct.

EQUITY COURTS.—S.ituItDAY.
Before the Lord Cletneenor.

BRAYNTON V. THE LONDON AND NOILTII-WE,TI. lIN RAIL-
WAY CO.—DEVIATIONS.—INJuscriox.—This was a motion
to restore an injunction which the Master of the Rolls had dis-
solved. Mr. Cooper and Mr. J. A. Cooke in support of the
motion said, that though the terms of the notice were to re-
strain the defmdants from carrying their railway (from Staf-
ford to Rugby) across the plaintiff's property, by a cutting
under the roadway, stillit was net the plaintiff's wish to stop
the works, but his object was to compel the defendants to re-
fer to an arbitrator the matter of the additional damage
that would be done to the plaintiff's property by a cutting,
instead of crossing the road on a level. The plans and sec-
tions deposited with the clerk of the peace showed that the
crossing of the road by the railway was to be on a level; and
in the agreement into which the plaintiff entered respectiug
his land taken by the company for the purpose of the railway,
it was his intention that the railway should cross the road on
a level. lie swears he would not have entered into the
agreement except with that intention. Now, the defendants
were deviating from the plans and sections, and also front
their agreement with the plaintiff, and were carrying the
railway across his land and the road by a cutting. The
powers given for deviating in the Land Chums Consolidation
Act, provided that such deviations should be made with as
little damage to proprietors of lands and others as was
p~•sible.
The Lord Chancellor, in the course of the argument and
at the conclusion, said the plans and sections deposited and
exhibited to the public were intended to show the direction
of the line generally, bat not to prevent alterations and de-
viations in the course of the works. Unless these deviations
were prohibited by the special act or by the contract between
the parties, this court could not interfere by injunction,
because the general act empowered the company to deviate.
Ilia lordship was clearly of opinion that the contract between
these parties did not prevent this deviation, nor did the
special act. The party whose land was taken was entitled
to compensation for every damage done by the works. The
plans, so tar as they were essential to the railway, were to be
adhered to; but if every deviation was to be made the
subject of the interference of this court, no railway at all
amid be constructed. If the plaintiff could make out that
this deviation did him damage, he would get compensation
for it. There was no equity raised in this matter, and there
would be Le justification of this court to interfere, by injunc •
tion, to restrain works that are not contrary to the act of
parliament, or to the contract between the parties. The
motion must be dismissed, with costs.