The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-11 00:00:00

Eve.. Via's-area:Lux 24a E.

MORMAY V. THE BLACLWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.-
APPLICATION FOIL AN INJI:NCTION AB TO LAND TAMEN
MY A RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an application on behalf of the Commissioners
of Paving fur the district of Limehome, including Hayden-
square, tor an injunction to restrain the Blackwell Railway
Company from further proceeding with their works in
Hayden-square, to which place they had obtained an act of
parliament for making a branch railway, and from allowing
any obstructions to remain iu the urea of the square. It
appeared that by a private set of parliament, the 11th Gio.
Ill.' c. 01, the plaintiffs had the control over the square,
and had exercised acts of management from time to time
from that period. The railway company had served a
notice upon the commissioners that they intended to break
'up and remove the paving in Ilaydon-square, far
the purpose of commencing their works; but the usual
notice that they were about to take possession of the area
of the square, was not served upon the plaintiffs. On the
10th of October the coinraimioners wrote to the Railway
Company, objecting to the proceedings, but on the Ilth
the company commenced removing the railings and cutting
down the trees and shrubs.

Mr. Stuart and Mr. Tripp appeared in support of the
application fur an injunction, and contended that the com-
pany hail no right to take possession of the land without
paying or depositing the value of it, which would amount
to 2,11.10?.
Mr. Malice and Mr. Iligg contended that the soil of the
square was not vested in the plaintiff+, and the only notice
they were entitled to was that which they hail received,
and such as the act of parliament directed to be served
upon all paving commissioners. It was also contended,
upon the evidence produced, that the plaintiffs had ac• '
quiesccd in what bad been done.
The Vice-Chancellor = lid, as to the point of acquiescence,
it appeared that before the railway company applied fur
their act of parliament they gave notice of their intention
to the clerk of the commissioners, and also sent them a plan
indicating what land would be :used over by their rail-
way, and in that plan the plaintiffs were stated to be owners
of the area of the square. The act was passed on the 3th of
' June, ISII, and on the _2nd of August following the clerk
to the commissioners wrote to the company to know why a
notice to treat had not been served upon them, and upon
the same day an answer was returned stating that the re-
quisite notice would in due time be served. A notice was
subsequently sent as to the company's intention to break
up the pavement, but eta notice was given of
their desire to treat as required by the 18th section
of the Lands Clauses Act. S Mae correspondence

took place, but the commissioners never consented
to give up possession, awl his Honour's opinion was thlt no
ease of acquiescence had been made out upon the evidence
to take away the plaintiff's right to apply to this court foe
an injunction. As to the merits of the case, the plaintink
complaiacil that the notice required by the lith section of
the Lands Clauses Act to be given to persons interested
in or having power to sell or convey lands before
they could take possession, had not been served upon them;
that the company had therefore -violated the provisions of
the act in that respect, and that as they had not paid or de-
posited the value of the land, as required by the filth and
with sections of the act, the company were wrong-doers
and the commissioners contended that they had such ,
eutitle

ownership is the area of the square us to . .e them to re-
strain the aupany from proceeding until the terms
of the set had been complied with. The rail-
way mumps. , on the other hand, contended that
rs ers had not such an ownership in the
epees este make a notice to sell and convey necessary,
emi deg ameespeently they had not violated the act. The
speuediet es W what interest was vested in the plaintiffs was
see which be weld not decide upon motion unless com-
pelled to do le; it certainly was not clear upon the act under
which the 011111111111•1101111 were appointed that they had the
fee simple of the area in the square, the title of the plain-
tiffs was not set forth in the bill ; and it appeared to his
Honour that there was a very grave question whether the
commissioners had that species of interest which was con-
templated by the 18th sec. of the Lands Clauses Act and
capable of being purchased by the company. If they had
such an interest it was clear the company had violated the
act ; under these circumstances he should make an order
that the defendants undertaking to pay into court before a
particular day to be agreed upon the aunt of 2,1001., alleged
by the plaintiffs to be the value of the urea, by way of de-
posit as compensation for such estate, right, and interest,
if any, as the eoaunissioners might have, and for loss, da-
mage, and costs occasioned by the company in presecuting
their works, the motion should be refused.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.
Since tit Burro—Bigrostabx!Cmarav, Mi JusitceC,u.supos,

Aso Ma. JCUTICR Eats.

TOT OCZEN r. SW iiisToitCiiCOC[IIVIIN AND OTHERS.
—LIABILITY OF TNT UNITRD HISTICI INSTITUTION TO
BR RATED TO TOT RILIBP BP THI POO/L.
Mr. Pushier, Q.C., said this was an appeal against the
poor rate levied by the authorities of St. Martin-in-the-
Fields ea Sir George Cockburn, the Duke of Northumber-
land, sal other officers of the United Service Institution.
The rate had been confirmed by the Quarter Sessions, sub-
js.,* to die opinion of this court upon a case which raised the
goodies of the rateability of the nudist ion. The learned
essmeskpreeeeiled to say that he appeared in support of the
melt elseedeas, and he bad to wound that the United

SOCIETY.—HULF.S OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
In this case a rule had been obtained, calling on the Rev.
Charles Banuatine, the secretary of a Friendly Society bear-
ing the above name, to show cause why a mandamus should
not issue, commanding him or some other officer of the so-
ciety to convene a meeting of the members of the society
for the purpose of rescinding, altering, and repealing some
of the rules. The oth section of the Friendly theieties Act
provides, that noon a requisition signed by seven members
of such a society and presented to its president, treasurer,
principal secretary, or clerk, such officer should convene a
public meeting. In this case a requisition so signed had
been presented to the secretary, who did not think it would
be advantageous to the society to act upon the notice, and
had therefore declined to call the meeting ; and the ques-
tion was, whether, under the act in question, a discretionary
power was vested in him or not?
Mr. Pashlcy having shown cause against the rule,
Lord Campbell, without calling on Mr. Hawkins, who
appeared in support of it, said it seemed to him that the in-
tention of the legislature was that upan a requisition, signed
by seven members, a meeting should be called; and it was
not intended to give the officers mentioned in the act au op-
portunity of refusing to convene such meeting. The calling
of the meeting by one of the officers of the institwinn was
certainly meant to be merely formal, for if the president
refused to act on the requisition, it surely could not have
been intended that a clerk should overrule his decision.
It appeared to him, therefore, that upon the presentation
of a requisition, properly signed, to any officer naund in
the act, he ought to authenticate it by calling the meeting,
and had no ili.cretionary power in the matter.
Mr. Justice Coleridge concurred. If it had been intended
that there should be a discretion in the officers of such in-
stitutions, so many of them would not have been mentioned,
because he discretion of one might be overruled by the
other. The signature was merely intended to be funnel, to
authenticate the requisition, and have the meeting con-
vened.

Mr. Justice Erie was of opinion, in a former similar case,
that it was the intention of the legislature to give a discre-
tion so that any seven members should not have the power
of disturbing the society without thessnetion of a principal
officer. I: pun a recon.ickratinu of the subject, however,
he was inclined to agree in the opinions of his learned
brethren.—ltale absolute.
Tile NEW Loito MAYOR. _ _

About three o•ciotl:tiiC 1.;;t1 Mayor, attended by the
Recorder, Sheriffs, and suite, came into the court, and, in
the usual form, invited the learned judges to the b.ruquet
at Ciundhall.

BAIL COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Mr. Justice Tolleson having been unable to take his scat
in the Court of Queen's Bench today, in consequence of the
illness of a relative, Mr. Justice Erle sat in the Nil court,
and the basilicas of this court was suspended fur the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-7YESTERDAY.

SITTI;1;.;; iIANCO. -B1401:1: CHM/ JUOTICX JUVII4 MIL J.ITICK
NAULE, Jentra Wit.11.4x., AND MIL Ji.l.rres
E DWAILDS .IND OTHER.) r. THE GREAT WE,TEKN RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.—Tiiv. CAVALIZU.S. (11T:suing.
The court this morning heard the concluding part of the
argument in this case, hut they postponed their judgment
until after the can of " Parker c the Great Western Unit-
war Company" should be heard.
BEAIWSILAW r. Loan I.ONDESIIOBOUOII.—THE WIND.

ING•CV ACT,

This was an action to recover deposits paid upon shares
in the Deal not Dover Railway from the defendant, a pro.
visional committeeman. The company failed in getting
their act, and an order way made to wind up the concern.
The matter now came before the court upon demurrer to a
plea, and the question raised was,whether the action should
not be against the official manager of the company, instead
of against an individual member of it.
The case was not concluded at the rising of the court.

TILE LOUD tVOil

The Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, accompanied by the various
corporation officers came into court about half-past two
o'clock • and the Recorder, according to the usual furm, in-
vited the judges to the banquet at Guildhall.
The Chief Justice said the judges would have pleasure in
attending his lordship.