The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-29 00:00:00

Kaki) intelligence.

crown to revoke at the end of .3 years. The question
before the court arose out of the no compliance with toe
requisition as to the payment of 50,000'. The defendants
made two objections to the course adopted by the prose-
cutor. Firstly, that issuing • Icier fieias was not the proper
course to pursue, inf"amuch as the requirements in the char-
ter were not conditions, upon the non.fulfilment of which
the letter patent became void ; and secondly, that even it
they were ouch condition the proceedings ought to be, ac-
cording to the frame of the proviso, not by *tire ferias but
in the first instance by either an absolute or modified revo-
collo& of the charter as her Majesty might think fit. With
respect to the first objection, it appeared, having regard to
the authorities, and looking to the words of the charter
itself, that the requirements were certainly conditions, upon
default of compli er.ce with which the charter might be
uncoiled upon proceedings by wire facial. The letters
patent used the very words "subject to the conditions
herein contained," which could only infer to those requi-
sition'', one of which, it had been found by the jury, had
not been complied with. Then as to the second objection, that
the crown could not proceed by scire facies, upon the sug-
gestion of • non compliance, without first exercising the
power reserved of annulling under the great seal or sign
manual, such a course would require that the act should be
done first, and that then the truth of the ground upon
which that act was done should be inquired into. It could
not be supposed that such an unusual mode of procedure
entered into the minds of those who framed and assented
to the charter. It was also urged, as another point, that
by the introduction of the special clause of revocation, the
crown had divested itself of i's right under a seire (arias.
But there seemed no ground for such an objection. The
charter only gave to the crown a further power of proce-
dure, so that the letters patent might either be annulled
by the special authority reserved in them, or in the
ordinary way. The learned judge was therefore of opinion
that the rule should be discharged.
Mr. Justice Coleridge was of opinion that the rule should
be made absolute. his lordship then gave the substance of
those parts of the charter already adverted to, us to the
amount of capital to be subscribed and paid up before com-
mencing businev, and the eertifie Ate of the three direvors
to be given. Ile then said that the letters patent after-
wards provided that if those requirements should not be
fulfilled, or if the company should fail to enter into and
lodge the deed of settlement with the proper officer within
the time therein limited, it should be lawful for her Majesty
to revoke the said letters patent either absolutely or with
qualifications. Then followed the provision for putline an
end to the charter at the termination of 21 years. The
jury having found one of these requisitions not complied
with, the question was whether or no judgment could pass,
unless her Majesty, by writing under the great seal or sign
manual, should declare her pleasure to revoke the charter.
The learned judge did not rely upon any distinction that
might be set up hetween conditions and provisions. The
real matter before the court was to con-ider the true mean-
ing of the whole instrument. Whatever might have been
the rule in past times and in a different state of society, as
a general principle in the present day the rule for
construing the grant of the crown did not differ
materially from that for construing the grant of • subject.
Truly, it the grant were obtained from the sovereign by'
misinforming him, then that fact would vitiate it. But
hero there was no imputation that the grant had been im-
properly obtained. It was plain that in this instrument'
at was the intention of the crown to reserve • special power
of revocation. Thus, the charter was absolute and for ever
in the first instance ; but it was, nevertheless, provided
that it might be revoked at the end of 21 years. The power
of revocation is agaia either absolute or qualified ; all this
tends to show the intention of the crown to reserve to itself
especial powers in the grant of these letters patent. On the
other aide, it has been argued that the special power was
cumulative to the ordinary power of annulling by wire
helm. But this line of reasoning could not here be cor-
rectly applied. A remedy could only be said to be cumula-
tive where it was applicable to a case in addition to an-
other. This was a case In which there were two separate re-
medies for the same thing, and if one were applied, then the
other could not be. It wu a ease of election, not of
cumulation. The permission of the Attorney -O 1 that
the seine facies might issue could not be taken as an expres.
sion of the will of the crown. It appeared, therefore, that
the letters patent provided • certain eal course to be
followed, and therefore that the proceedings by wire fames
did not apply in this case. The rule ought, therefore, to
be made absolute.
Lord Campbell was of opinion that the rule ought to be
discharged. His lordship then went over the chief parts
of the clauses of the letters patent in reference to the
subscription and payment of capital, and the certificate of
the three director& lie continued : the wire facies contains
a suggestion that the said sue of 50,0001. had not been paid,
and that, neverthekue, label been certified by three of the
directors of the said
sap,
&hely and untruly, that the
said sum had been so pild -up, although it had not been
paid up, as the said Menem well knew. The defendants,
by their fifth plea, that the said sum had
been so paid up, ni by their 10th plea that it
was so paid up when the eompany commenced business.
The issues on these pleas had been found by the jury for
the crown, and their verdiet was not ouestioged. The judg-
ment was sought to be arrested only because the mire mein,
was said to be an improper mode of procedure. There
seemed to be no doubt but that, without the special pro-
vision to the charter, it would have been competent to the
Attune -General, or to any private person with the At-
torney-General's fiat, to proceed by 'cite facies to cancel the
letters patent ; for, according to all the authorities cited at
the bar, sells facies would issue upon breach of • condition.
The pat meat of the sum of .50,0001. was such a condition.
But it bad bean very powerfully argued by the defendant's
counsel, Mr. Crowder, that the scire facies could not issue
until after the revocation of the letters patent, and that this
wire keen was defective on that ground. According to this
'the court wax called upon to say that the crown, by a pro-
vision inserted for increasing its powers, had imposed upon
itself the necessity of not proceeding by wire facial with-
out first revoking the charter. But to ascertain the force of
this argument, the value of the wire facies must itself be
considered. Although ha (Lordeampbelll had had the honour
of holding the position of Attorney-Oenenl far seven years,
he had not relied upon his recollection, but had searched
into the authorities and text-writers upon the subject ; but,
Iw-cording to the law as laid down in Mr. Hindmarsh's
work, and Mr. Campbell Foster's book, and Sir C. Macdo-
nald's ease, in the statute of 11 & 12 Vie., and in Mr.
Webster's patent cases, the argument of the defendants
could not be sustained. Again, suppose the defendants so
exercised their powers as to cause an interruption in the
friendly relations between this country and some foreign
power, would not the writ of scire facies issue then ? He
certainly felt bound to believe that the special provision
did not take away the ordinary right of procedure in this
or any other instance. His lordship therefore concurred
with Mr. Justin Wightman in thinking that the rule
ought to be discharged. Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr.
Justice Erie being of • contrary opinion, the rule must
drop. A writ of error might be brought for the settlement
of the question. The contrary opinion, runtimes found in
the books, that a writ of error could not be brought where
the court was equally divided, was undoubtedly incorrect.
Judgment fur the crown.
RAWLINSON 0. MEDWIN.—PIIOIIIBITION TO TIIII 111111101.

EQUITY COURTll.—Yeartan tY.
Yves 111 Lou. ClWNaLleil •to nos Low. Jt.rvio.
DRItIOSIIIIS O. HORNS ♦tD ()THEM.
TM court was occupied the whole day with this put
Ward cam, soil it will be resumed to-day.

Nereus rwa Manna or eve noun.
COCIALL O. BACON.
This use,which his occupied the court several days, was
toinight toe conclusion this day. Plaintiff is the second
loortgame of the Treve an estates in Cornwall, Mil the
bill was flied against Bacon and Rhodes, the first mon-
fa s, atriiust subsequent ineumbranecs and against
ttrZlyan, the mortgagor, and the object of the bill was to
impeach the securities of Bacon and Rhodes on the ground
of usury. The bell alto alleged that Rhodes had been in
pomession. •
His Honour made the usual decree of redemption end
fond 'ore, aid dismissed tae bill with costs so far as it
sough'. to iiopeach the securities of Baron and Rhodes, and
so far as it adight to charge Rhodes as mortgagee in
pie to .sion.
Mr. Raupell, Mr. Hetherington, and Mr. Prior were
coun•••1 Inc tier pl data; Mr. Loyd and Mr. Erskine for
Bacon ; Mr. Wilcox and Mr. T t fur Rhodes; and
Pile. Shatter, Mr..Elmelty, and Mr. Tripp for other parties
eomerr.ed.

Vrraes

&a W. Paoa Woos.

BIPLAND ItAtt.wAy C . e Till AIIIISRGATI.
BoTTINttAX, AND BOSTON ♦ND EASTEUN JINCTION
BAILWAII.VOMPANT..

Mr. tinily concluded hie arguments in this case for the
defenil.,nt; ..A 31r. Paskiese and Mr. !ledge wire lit rd on
the some ride...

Mr. Bolt retied.
The Vice-Chancellor said them were two parts of this in-
junction—first, it was asked that the defendants might be
restrained Irma ming, or authorising the Great Northern
Of any other railway to use the plaintiffs' statien at Note
tinghem ; and seeondly, to restrain them from running en-
gines which have not becu inspected. As to the first, I
must see whether the plaintiffs hove any legal right, and, if
so, how far this court will interfere to assist it ; aa to the
mussel, I hove already said that some injunction must be
granted. 1 may have my own view of the object which has
induced the pl.untiffs to aptly for this injunction, but still if
they have a right, and the defendants have resisted it, as
they clearly have up to the tiling of this bill, the right must
be entureel. The defendants iusist on the extreme intent.
/moieties: that will arise; but the plain answer to that, is,
that the legol iture has given the right, and, if it is so very
letr-invenient, it will no doubt soon bat broaght before the
/notice of th- legislature. Tht Railways Clauses Aet, 8 Vie.
c. 20, 1.115, enacts that " no engine shall be brought or used
on the r iiiway ousts the same shall have been first ap-
proved of by the company, and within fourteen days after
notate given to the company by any party desirous of bring-
tag such engine on the railway, the company shall cause
their engineer to examine such engine, at any place within
three miles of the railway, to be appointed by the owner,
and to report thereon to the company; sad, within seven
days aim such report, if the engine shall be proper to be
used un the railway, the company shall give a certificate of
their approval." Its clear that this was not complied
with, as to the two engines which the railway have
taken possession of, and therefore the company haven right
to restrain the use of them ; but I think the company must
undertake to give their certificate as soon as they can, and
as the engines arc already in their custody, the 16 days'
notion cannot be required. With respect to the 5 engines
which have been running on the line, the provision cannot
be taken to apply. It must he presumed that the com-
pany have done their duty, of inspecting those engines, and
by the letters written by them to the defendants, and set
out in the bill, they state that they do not consider the pro-
wisi.n to apply to them ; therefore, on that branch, the in-
junction will be to restrain the defendant. from using any
other engin., except those live, until such engine has been
duly certified. Then comes the question, aa to the first branch
of the injunction. That is askese for in several ways. First,
It is laud, the defendants ought to be restrained
from using the plaintiffs' station at all ; and neat, that at
all events they ought to be restrained from using it for any
trathe hoolei d through, under an arrangement with the
Great Northern Company. If they had no legal right to
use the station at all, I should have no difficulty, but I
cannot come to that conclusion. I give no positive opinion
es that point. It is enough to say, that it is not clearly
made out that they have no such right. As far as the
matter depends on the General Railway Act; I should have
great doubt. That act makes it lawful for any person, upon
payment of tolls, tense the railway ; but it says nothing
about the statism, and though the interpretation clause says
that " railway" shall include works authorised to be COO-
Wanted ;" yet, such interpretation must be taken in con-
tumelies with the rest of the set. And it seems unreasonable
whoa the act gives no compensation for use of the station,
and Only • toll of so much per mile for the use of
the line, that that sh .uld be held to include the use
of the most expensive part of the works. A person may
get land and build a station, and the act gives him power
to lay down rails to communicate with the line ; and it is
not neceteary therefore, that he should have the use of the
station. 1 think therefore the matter is dotabttia. Then
looking at the special act, that appears to me to be more in
favour of the defendants. It contains provisions as to set-
tling the terms on which the station was to be used, if the
parties differed, *high seem quits unnecessary icthere was
no right of using it at all. But then, when we come to the
agreement between the companies, and which is set out in
the bill, that again seems to point the other way, and to
take it fur i ran•eil th ,t the defendants had no legal right.
Then, if they had no legal right, and the matter stands on
the agreement end the award made by Mr. Glyn, the
question comes to whether the terms settled by that award
are at an end. Now only two things were left to be settled
by that award, namely, bow mash was to be paid for pas-
*eager traffic and how much for goods traffic. And it is
said by the plaintiffs, that that award was only to be Wad-
ing s.. long as the companies were working reciprocally
for mutual advantage. And as the defendants are not
now working for the benefit of the plaintiffs, but
have entered into traffic engagements with a beside com-
pany, the award must be considered as no longer binding.
But it must be remembered that the agreement contains no
stipulation against the defendants entering into agreements
with other companies, and at the time it was made the
Great Northern Act was passed, and tha plaintiffs must
have foreseen that the defendants would have the opportu.
airy of working in connexion with the Great Northern, or
any other competing line, and they m4ht have protected
themselves from it by a special clause. I sauna, therefore,
say that the legal right ia clear, and if that is so, I must look
at the balance of inconvenience, and in that respect there is
no comparison. If Ido not grant the injunction, the injury
to the plaintiffs, supposing them to be in the right, may be
compensated; but, supposing I grant the injunction, I must
stop the whole of the defendants' traffic, and do irreparable
injury to them. Oa this branch, therefore, I mast refuse
the injunction.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.
&moos la Lisa.—ftroaa Loan C.asirsu.s. Ma. hence Cow.
aux% Ma. Jeuncs Wsoirriug. AND Ma. Joirrice Elms.
Tea QUIZ!! ON TUN PIOSZCOTION OW SIN J. BROOKS
V. vo I &LOTION ARC II triLaoo CO lIPANT.—J UDO RN T.

This cue was tried before Lord Campbell some time since,
and resulted in a verdict for the crown. Subsequently a
rule was obtained, calling upon the prosecutor to show
taunt why judgment should not be arrested, on the ground
tha: proceedings by mire facia were improperly taken. The
rule having been argued, the court nowdelivered judgment.
Their lordships differing in opinion delivered judgment se-
riatim ; commencing with
Mr. Justice Erie, who said in Wiens the prosecutor coo-
tended that the lettere patent granted to the defendants had
become void, because the direction Ikeda attained, that
the company abash!' set esimmease beams until it was
cortiSed by tame Oral= that a muftis portion of the ca-
pital amosatlei to 50,000/. had been wabseribed, had not
been properly emnpaed with ; the jury having found that
60,0001. had net bees pain up wises the company began
business. The Been palest lamorperating the company
declared that the pewits hem*, the corporation
should not begin busies= use it was certified
by three directors that the tent at 12.11001. had been paid
up. It la then provided_ (leaf, me the corporation
shall not comply with the dhiene therein unstained, it
should be lawful for the Somata by nay writing under
the great seal or sign manual to revoke the said charter,
either absolutely or under such conditions as she might
think fit ; and that after 21 yeah It should be lawful for
the Sovereign to make void the rimier or to modify the
same. Mending to the prosecutor's construction the char-
ter became void upon the noa-oompliance with any direc-
tion therein contained, and without any revocation under
the great 'eel or sign manual. But this construction was
contrary to the words of the charter, and if effect was to be
given to these words, this construction seamed to be mate-
sable. The prosecutor also alleged that the legal conse-
quence of the provision for annulling under the great seal
Of sign manual wee to make the charter revocable at the
will of the crown, and that the permission of the Attorney-
General to imue airs facia was conclusive that the crown
led proceeded to revocation. But this argument war un-
supported by authority that the consent of the Attorney-
General to the issuing of the writ was evidence of the will
of the crown to revoke. If, upon any proceedings,
the question of the will of the crown to revoke came
before a court, and evidence of the permission of the
Attorney-General to Sir James Brooke for the issuing of
this ache hens was offered, that would be no proof of the
will of the Sovereign. The judgment of the court upon a
stirs funs must be absolute, and if for the prosecutor the
letien patent would be absolutely uncoiled; thus the dis-
cretionary power contained in them would be rendered
Immolating. if the other parts of the charter were ens-
mine-1 they would be found to weans the view taken by
the deteutante. Thus there wee a clause authorising the
crows, at the sad of 21 years, to annul or modify the let-
ters patent. Now, if a wire fades were to issue at the ezpi-
ration of the 21 years, the jedpeeet of the juin, ilagainat
the 4.furellosio. amid way be dot the letters patent Amid
ac sully he messaid• The lestwed judge wee therefore of
opinion that IlloFteelesid be ke the &Andante.
Far' "tie. mkt the upyllislisa ia this ease
was to swum the edgings* et Obi 'me win the Wood'
joie t,v seise facia to royal Um beim pint pea to
the Wombat. It mewed ups lhe amposint dist the
letters posse emlalnd wises ism diseedui eseeela
thine• to be ism% moon album iieeMlas >let file emie SI
100,0001. &soli be submelbeil le villain sirloin BIM NA
that :AA*. &sold be @MAI pall up "Me As
ammemeed beelines. The inner Ilna amnia=
Len Ihie ease the eeepesalen Medi see ellelply with
of the letteee pewit It die ell be lawful for
5112'"IFL: rwreke the Omer, Alba eineineely or with
Them ilia nee Ile wiles enstUng the

Or CRICHESTZII.

Mr. Creasy moved for a rule to show cause why a prohi-
bition should not issue, restraining the Ilbhopof Chiehester
from taking any further proceedings in a cause tried in the
Coasistory Cour'. of Chichester, upon the ground that this
was a cause in which the bishop, who was the judge, con-
curred in the suit, and bad guaranteed the cost of it. The
action was for the perturbation of the right to a pew. The
citation was served in October, 1851, and the libel admitted
in proof upon the 12th of November. The practice of the
ecclesiastical court permitted a suit to be removed, either
by the bishop or the promoter, from the court of the dio-
cesan into the Arches Court. This suit, however, had not
been removed, and on the 4th of August last the exa-
mination of witnesses was published. In this ear
mination• there was an answer to an interrogatory, in
which the promoter stated that he had laid the whole
circumstances before the bishop, who had concurred in the
steps he had taken and guaranteed the costs, as he wished
to put (tom, the practice of buying, selling, and letting
pews. The cause was heard in the Consistory Court of the
diocese by the bishop', deputy, upon the 3rd September
last, and udgment given for the plaintiff Under the 23
Henry VIII., c. 9, &cause in which a bishop was interested
ought not to be tried in his own court, before his own
deputy. There was no imputation of improper motives on
the part of the bishop.
The court took time to consithr.

EXCHEQUER

-YESTERDAY.

Emma is Emus.
The court sat this morning when Mr. Baron Parke gave
judgment in "Stevenson v. Newnhani," and also in the
West London Railway Company v. the London ►nd North
Western Railway Company.'
In each case the judge* reversed the judgment of the
court below, and ordered a venire de novo.
The judges assembled in the "full court" to bear argu-
ments 111 the following cue in error from the Court of
Queen's Bench.

Till YOB= AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAT COMPANY
s. Tao QueeN.
The arguments in this case occupied the whole of the day,
and were, at the rising of the court, adjourned over till to-
morrow (this) morning.
The judges present were the Lord Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Baron l'arke,
Mr. Baron Aldcrson, Mr. Justice Creswell, Mr. Baron
Platt, Mr. Janice Williams, and Mr. Baron Martin.

ADMIRALTY COURT—YEsTripay.
Bares, Da. LV111111301031.

Tlll iNTLOILITY.—CoLusiox.
The vessel proeetcling was the Crimea, a collier brig of
184 tons, bound from Newcastle to Shields with • cargo,
and the accident occurred in the Yarmouth Roads, between
6 and 7 o'clock in the morning of the 16th of June. The
caw of the Crimea was, that the wind was fresh from the
13.8. W., and that she was standing on the larboard tack,
close hauled; that she saw the Integrity, which was a liar-
depool vessel approaching on the port tack, and that the
latter, instead of giving way, and going under the stern of
the b;ig, held on until she was close to her bows; that she
thee suddenly put her helm down, and that that manrouvre
eaused bar to lie nearly dead on the water in the course of the
Crimes. The latter vessel kept her loff till the moment
11 of the MOWN when she put her helm &starboard and
mad her trysail, in order to weaken the force of the colli-
de° which ensued ; and the damage was exceedingly
slight. The defines was, that the accident had been caused
solely by the unskilful and rumousealike conduct of the
latsgrity itself.
Dr. feaster and the Qualm's Advocate appeared for the
pertim.
The omirt piessea* the danelc

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 29, 1853.

Ten Two BifYllltllll.-BALII/103.
This was a snit brought by a Sandwich -smash, stalled the
Sons of 'lichen. egoist the Two Brother, a Kbeopu,
bound from Donnie to London with corn. The schooner
bad met withavery serious damage from the tempestuous
weather of The 23th of October; and on the following
morning she was dawned by the crew of the smack, as they
were fidsing in the Northern Sea. She was then about
seven miles distant, and bad a signal of distress ilyiog in
her rigging. The fishermen immediately quitted their sta-
tion, and proceeded to the schooner, which they boarded,
and agreed to conduct to port. After two unautisessful
attempts, made with great risk to the salvors, they ace-
ended in g,tting a hawser from the schooner to the smack,
and In taking her in tow. About 6 p.m., eke next day,
they made the Spurn light ship, and they eventually took
the vessel into Grimsby. Her value was about 1,20 L
Drs. Haggard and 'leaner appeared for the salvors, sad
Drs. Addorns and T7ise tor the owners.

The mart awarded the cum of 2201.
THZ TZOGY.--SALV.IIOI.

The Peggy was a collier and on the 23rd of July she
weat aground on the Lee Sand, near the mouth of the
Thames. The salvors, who were a number of aniacksmen.
merely assisted in lightening her of part of her cargo and
in taking out an anchor. There were 20 smacks employed,
and their services lasted about 24 hours ; but the weather
was calm, and they did not incur any danger. When the
vessel had been got clear it was found that she had under-
gone so little damage, that she at once proceeded on her
voyage. Her value was 6401., and a tender of 001. had been
made to the salvors and refused. _ . _

Drs. Twin and Spinks appeared for the salvors, and Drs.
Add..ms and Deane (or the owners.

. ...
The court awarded 801

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YEsTy.RDAT.
/31,01.2 Yb.. 00111111,10.,,11 ETAN.S.
Inc RE It. F. Fume.

This wail the first meeting under the bankruptcy of Robert
Ferdinand Pries, corrifactur, whose cue has been recently
brought before the public iu connection with some forged
bias of lading. The ►ankruptcy took plate about a fort.
night ago; the petitiocing creditors being Messrs. Moat.
cans, Schuchoff, and Co., foreign bankers, of Gracecburch-
street. This was the meeting for proof of debts end choice
of assignees. There wits not a large number of creditors
present, and but a small amount of debts was proved,
(20,4091.) owing to most of the bills being still in circula.
tion, and the principal creditors holding security. The
following gentlemen were chosen trade assignees: Mr.
Cruger, commercial agent, of Moorgate striet ; Mr. E. A.
Herrman, merchant, of New Broad street ; and Mr.
Schuchoff, banker, of Gracechurch-street. The official
assignee is Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Van Sandal' is the
*elicitor under the bankruptcy. The bankrupt, being in
custody, was not present at the meeting.