The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-17 00:00:00

I,aW OtteMance.

EQUITY COURTS.—YasTERDAy.

Boca van Lean CIWICELLOI min ran Loans imam.

BAILLIN V. JACKSON..

Mr. Smythe, bytiediivitilniofll;eLord Justices, ap-
plied to the full court for Instruction on a point of practice.
IThe question was, whether a certificate of the proper dß-
cor, setting forth a deed of conveyanu had been duly
registered et St. Vincent, in the West Indies, could, under
the 16th it 18th Victoria, c. 86, 5. 22, be received in evi-
dence without the signature of the officer being verified by
affidavit, as was neeessary before the passing of that att.
The Lord Chancellor wu of opinion that it must be
shown that the officer in question was " lawfully authorised
to administer oaths; " and as that had not been stated, the
'certificate could not be received.
8111111MBIYILT V. 88111111111 BUST.

This cue waS4lSiiips;tiohesitoliaiard-ainezt.
Tat ATTOONET.GENVIILL V. Tall SBILVVIILD G/11 CON.
01.1111115' COMPANT.—Powsas or OA' COMPAXIIII.

This case, which was part-heard on Friday and Satur-
day, was resumed. It was an information and bill for in-
junction, at the instance of the Sheffield United Om Light
Company, to restrain the defendants from laying down
pipes and maize and other works under the streets and
highways of Sheffield, or any other act by which the pas-
sage of her Majesty's subjects would be obstructed or ren-
dered less safe or convenient; or by which the pipes and
mains of the defendants should be injured.
the arguments having been concluded, the judges differ-
ing in opinion delivered their judgments seriatim.
Lord Justice Turner said that from the year 1818 to
1836 there existed in Sheffield but one gas company. In
the latter year a second was formed, and in 1844 the two
amalgamated under an act of parliament, and that company
were the real plaintiffs in the ease. The defendants' company
was formed inllB6l, sad completely registered in MarchlB32,
under tile Joint Stock Registration Act. In the following
April a bill was tiled by the plaintiffs against the defen-
dants to restrain them from laying down their pipes. The
defendants had actually laid no pipes then, and that being
so the matter was argued before him when Via-Chancellor,
and he was of opinion that there was no ease for an in-
junction. The present bill and information were subse-
quently filed, and another application was made to him as
Via-Chancellor for an injunction in August last, but that
also was refused. A motion was next made before the
Lords Justices in August, and that also was refused; but
leave was given to the plaintiffs to proceed by indictment or
action for a nuisance. In October last the defendants
began to lay down their pipes, and in December the
present injunction was moved before the Lords Justices.
It was then thought best that the motion and cause should
he heard together, and the matter came on before the Lords
Justices, when • difficulty arose on their differing in
opinion, the act of parliament under which they were ap-
pointed only providing for each a position of things in the
case of an appeal, and this being an original hearing. It
was, therefore, thought best to bring the matter before the
full court. He had, in determining the case, first to con-
sider the general principle upon which the court interfered
by injunction, and that principle was the want of any ade
guts remedy at law. It was contended that although in a
private case of nuisance the court might consider the
" question " of injury, yet, when the matter involved was
• public nuisance, the court amid interfere by injunction.
He could not see any difference in that respect be-
tween • public and a private nuisance, and he thought
that in both oases the court could take' into consideration
the " quantum" of injury. That being so, the amount of
injury in the present ease must be ascertained, and the
remedy at law considered in order to see whether it was in-
adequate or not, for it was only on the ground ;of that re-
medy being inadequate that the court would interfere by
injunction. The public injuries here complained of con-
flated of the interruption of the free passage of the streets
of Sheffield by works which were Indispensable to the lay-
ing down of the pipes and mains of the defendants ; and
also from interruptions which it was presumed would occur
from time to time in misname of the necessary repairs
of the works. Those injuries, however, could only be con-
sidered to amount to temporary inconveniences, for no
more than a few yards of pavement could be taken up at
a time for the pupas of repairing, and the
Ly-
ing down of the pipes would not be repeated.
If the court interfered to prevent merely a tem-
porary inconvenience, he ;thought the/ might am well be
called on to prevent a " hoarding" in the streets, which was
used in London during the repairs or building of Wanes, or
any similar case. Such things were all more or lees nuisan-
ces. In this case the nuisance complained of—if nuisance
it was—was more an individual than a public one. But the
court could not interfere on the ground of private nuisance,
because a great proportion of the inhabitants of Sheffield
were favourable to the so-called nuisance. It was then said
if the defendants were permitted to go on with their works,
the public peace would be endangered by riots. But the
mart wild set mum that the civil power was insufficient
to gressews edam se ems be influenced by an alleged in-
of test pewee to grant an injunction. Some
reit= bees laid on the delay which had
taken play Ia moving in the matter, and he thought
last time bed banana a delay on the part of the Actor-
nereeentel se lemmata materially against the success of
ffee lahreastios. He (Lord Justice Turner) thought the
ease entirely failed on public grounds. As regarded the
private injury to the plaintiffs, he did not see that they had
anything more to complain of than any individual person.
It was true they had powers given them by an act of par-
Bement to lay down their pipes, but that was not an exclu-
sive right, and, i/ they suffered any special damage hest
the proceedings of the defendants, they had their remedy
by action. Neither on public nee on private grounds had
I any cam of nuisance been made out eafficient to warrant
the interference of the court by Injunction • and therefore
he was of °pipits that the bill and information ought to be
dismissed, but without costs. _ .

Lord limeys Knight Bruce said that the order of the
court made in August might or might not have been a pro.
per one; it wu, bowery, mart ea as bassisestary appli-
cation, and being made wittiest preindies lee thought it was
a prow one. The quasar now was what dame should
be made. It was clear thee the defendants in laying down
their pipes and in all they led done, had noted after receiv-
ing full notice of the modem of the gantlet; for the
latter had from the eta end vinifeeml7 egiosed their ope-
rations as a pavanes, and be did not this It that the plain-
tiffs were open to the sommation of delay in
their proceedings. As regard the queries of nnisasos,
there could be so doubt Oa the Meer of Ireilleld had
been unlawfully broken up Ibe dolherlaata, mad they
must be considered as drake sessedings for
the future. This waste abaft a sad although at
t~elnt it mier be pilot- mplaby dromarr, yet is process of
it would al amain of a perpetual
aufeesas, fa asempeesee al be continned reaewal. It was
net Miran to protect monopoly, but he nevertheless
thought that as the plane& bad laid down their pipes in a
I legal our sulkier.' manner, they had a right to be pro-
tected. It wee urged that the same course as had been
takes by the delhadmia had been adopted by other com-
panies in Mina& parb of Ragland, and that without their
obtaining nese of prallament. However that might be, it
was not a nem whisk eight to weigh with the court, nor
was the coed is he alba aa Or depute its powers to local
boards and inrneyem, is wt..' the defendants were de-
arer at limbs n 011.1116 Re was of opinion, on the
whale, tbst the leguatdea might to be granted ea prayed,
and that no order should be made with regard to costs.
The Lord Chebeellor said that, after much consideration,
and paying ell the attention that win due to the very full
arguments which he had heard, he had come to the same
conclusion r Lord Justice Turner, and was of opinion that
the decision of the court must be against the plaintiffs.
The bill and information were therefore dismissed with-
out cats.

Baran bon.Casnonsion innexissay.
ALTMANDIIIII IP. PINNILY...-1111IINCTION TO SIOSTILAIII
YROCI3DIXOS AT Law, 1111171110.
The plaintiffs were Messrs. Alexander and Co., corn-
factors at Londonderry, and they applied to their agents,
Spencer, /Willa and Co., corn-factors in London, to pur
chase for them two cargoes of Indian corn. In pursuance
of this direction, the Meson. dahlia bought one of the
cargoes from a corn dealer named Ralli, and the plaintiffs
thereupon gave Mean. dahlia a bill of exchange for the
amount. The Moue. Ashlin neglected to hand over the
bill to Rai, and Somme bankispe. The corn 'mired at
Falmouth be sailed the Oleeptra, and when the
plaintiff megabit fAir lt, sow idboutsd that the cap-
taut had bees OMISIOI law not to give it up,
se he had as' mosey. The pleintiffi
tbereineheldiged Miley Rani the amount before they
Nadi sileiaOs amp err "seen. The bill of exchange
was token pesmisa sr by the defendants, who were as-
signmeto the *M P. 011iesu
nt Addis awl Osiaisay, and refused to give it up
Oiesseed an action against the plain-
tiffs le seems Poe MOM% on the ground that the bin of
exams* lei buss Ea to Ashlin and Company as the
owners or the eery having purchased it from Rani.
The plaintiffs then this bill, alleging that Messrs.
Ashlin were their spas, that the bill of exchange was
given bethink fee_tibelespoes of being handed ever to Kati,
and the* se mselaten a had been given for the amount.
The plaintiffl payed that the bill of exchange might be
delivered up to be smelled, and that the action at law
might be restreised.
lir. Bailey nod Mr. Goldionid now moved for an injunc•
tiers in the Ness sills/ prayer.
Mr. Bacon end Kr. Selwyn opposed the motion, on the
ground that this was a question which ought to be tried
in a court of law, and that no reason had been shown
why the Ceurt of Chancery should interfere. If there was
really an equitable relief to which the plaintiffs were en-
titled, they could not come to this court till after the matter
had been deed by a court of law.
The Vint-Chancellor said that all the questions raised in
this ease could be better determined by a court of law then
by this court; end as it appeared that the trial at law had
been set down to come on for hearing on Friday next, there
would be no saving of time or of expense in restraining the
proceedings at law. If there was any equitable right of
which the plaintiffs could avail themselves, the question
could be argued after the trial at law. Therefore, if the
assigneeewould give en undertaking not to part with the bill
of exchange is the meantime, he would allow the motion
to stand over, and direct an action to be brought.
The defendants having given the required undertaking,
an order was made accordingly.

Mama Ihos-Caanzt.tai ervarr.
A few short cam of no public interest were disposed of.

Ronntsow v. Baum.

The arguments of this cue were then restuned, occupy-
ing the greater part of the day, and the cue not harmg
been concluded at the rising of the court the &eosin
thereon will be seemed to-mortow.