The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-31 00:00:00

COURT OF ERROR.--BATuaDaT.

3VDRIN Passion: lhoe LORD Claws ItTricia, nu Convoy, TETA'
TIM LORD CRITO 13AROW. MR. BARON PAPIR, Mu. BAND. RLDIRD.D,
W. Haim PLArr, Ma. Rearm MANrug, Ma. Jusnci CssaswaLL,
Jurnos %awes, Ass MILJUNTICDTA&DOVRD.
Tul YOB/L AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY,
PLAINTIFFS IN EILSok v. THI QUINN, DIIINDANT IN
EllllOll.-QUIBTION WMITHSI • RAILWAY COMPANY
ANN lOOND TO MAXI A LiSill 101 WHICH SHIT HAYS
OBTAINID AN ACT._ . .

This was • writ of error assigned against a judgment of
the Court of Queen's Bench. The question involved in
this case was one of considerable public importance—
namely, whether when a railway company have obtained
an act of parliament reciting that the formation of a rail-
way from A. to D. will be beneficial to the locality and the
public, and that the company are willing to make such line,
such act also giving them compulsory powers upon land-
owners, in the exercise of which they have taken lands,
and thereupon made part of the line, they are bound to
complete such line, not only to the extent to which they
have taken lands, but to the farthest part, although the
statute enacts only that "it shall be lawful " for them to
make the railway,and although the uncompleted portion from
B and C is a line;substituted by a later statute for the line
marked out between the same points by tt e original act.
the company were incorporated by an act of parliament in
the reign of William IV., under the title of tho York and
North Midland Railway Company," and in 1846 they ob-
tained another act, which recited that it would be attended
with local and public advantage if a railway were formed
from a line of the York and Scarborough Railway, at or
near the city of York, to Beverley," by Market Weighton,
and that they were " willing to execute the same." The
act then gave them, for that purpose, powers similar to
those conferred by their former special acts, and by the
Railway Clauses Consolidation Aet, with power to borrow
additional sums of money. It then enacted that "it shall
be lawful for the said company to make and maintain the
said railway in the lines and upon the lands delineated in
the plans, and described in the books deposited with the
clerks of the peace, and to enter, and take, and use such of
the said lands as shall be necessary for such purpose." It
appeared that the company subsequently made and opened
to the public the branch from York to Market Weighton,
which was about two-thirds of the enti re distance to Beverley.
In 1849 they obtained mother act to enable them to divert the
Kee from its former direction between Market Weighton and
Cherry Burton, a place about three miles from Beverley.
This act recited, that " it would be of advantage if part of
the said line between Market Weighton and Beverley were
diverted, and if the part rendered unnecessary by such di-
version were abandoned, and that the company were
willing to make this diversion ;" and it then enacted that
" it shall be lawful for the company to make and maintain
the said railway in the line and upon the lands described in
the taid books, and to enter and take and use such of the
said lands as shall be necessary for such purpose." The
company failed, however, to complete this line. Mr. David
Burton, one of the prosecutors, was, it appeared, the owner
of some lands over which by the act of 1846, the proposed
railway was to pass, and which was authorised to be aban-
doned by the act of 1849, at which latter period he was
still the owner, and Mr. John Leering, the other prosecutor,
was also the owner of some lands in the same route, and a
hartion of which the company had acquired, the same
ving been conveyed by him to them, whereby he alleged
that the remaining portion of his lands bad been very con-
siderably lessened in value, and the more especially from
the non-completion of the railway. The prosecutors being
desirous that the line should be completed, requested the
company to do so, stating that it would oe for the advantage of
the inhabitants of the locality and the public generally, if the
line were made. The company having refused, however,
to do so, a mandamus was obtained calling upon them to
show cause why they should not complete the line. The
company, in their answer, stated that the making of the
said railway would be a useless expenditure of labour and
money, whilst it would be destructive of the lands through
which it would go for any si riculture! or other useful pur-
pose ; and that all and every the sum and sums of money
applicable to the purposes of the said act, which would in
all reasonable probability come into the possession of, or be
disposable by, the said company, would fall short by a very
large sun of money, and not lets than 100,0001. of the ag-
gregate sum necessary for the making of the emlway autho-
riled by the act, and which the company are by the an-
nexed writ commanded to make. The crown demurred to
this return, and the question having been argned before
the Court of Queen's Bench, that court gave judgment for
the crown, and awarded a peremptory mandamus. Upon
this the writ of error was assigned, and the matter now
came before the court forjedgment.
Sir F. Kelly was heard at great length in support of the
writ of error, and Mr. Hugh Hill addressed the court on

behalf of thicrown. -
At the clomp of the arguments, the court intimated that
they would defer their judgment:

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—SATVBDAT.
IN THII MATIOR OF n. J. W. PALLIN.—LoAx Bocurrtwi.
This insolvent, a brash-maker at Horton, applied under
the Protection Act, and was opposed by a secretary of a
loan society,
The complainant stated that the insolvent became surety
for a person who borrowed 51. of the society. When he
offered himself he was asked if be was able to pay if the
borrower did not, and he answered in the allirmative.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips demanded the reason the in-
solvent had become security fur another person when he
could not pay his own debts ?
The insolvent made the usual answer, that be expected
the other party wonld pay; and he added that it was a
" long time " ago.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips told him what he called a
"long time" was only four months. There were some of
his own debts standing a much longer time.
The Secretary said there were two other societies in the
schedule.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips referred to some debts on the
schedule, and inquired of the insolent the reason he had
not paid them.
The insolvent said it had not been in his power.
Mr. Commisione•r Phillips told him be had put it out of
his power to grant him any relief. A person who could
not pay his own debts had no right to become surety for
other persons, as he thereby incurred debts without rea-
sonable or probable expectation of payment, and he had no
power to grant his application.
No day was named for the final order and pritection
withheld.

Nam RIOIILATION CtiDZit TEE PaoTzertos ACT.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips laid down a new regulation in
protection cases where the parties did not appear and ap-
plication was made to dismiss petitions. His Honour de-
clared that in future in such cues he would not dismiss
petitions unless creditors consented. A person was not to
get a protection and then ask to bays his petition dismissed
when he had arranged with a particular creditor. The cm-
, divers must cosseat to such a mine.