The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

ROUSE OF LORDS.
APPEALS.

GALLOWAY V. MI MAYOR Or LONDON. -TIM LORD MAYOR OR

LONDON Y. GALLOWAY.
These were two appals from the Court of Chancery.
The first was an appeal by Mr. Galloway from the Lords
Justices affirming a decree of the Master of the Rolls, dis-
missing the appellant's bill ; and the second was
an appeal by the mayor and corporation of Lon-
don from an order of the Lords Justices, by which
they granted an injunction to restrain the capon-
Bon from taking certain land of Mr. Galloway which
had been refused, by Vicsi-Chancellor Wood. The question
involved in both appeal. was whether the mayor and
corporation of London were entitled under the compulsory
powers to purchase, which by the Holborn Valley 1m
pronammt Act, 1864 (27th and 28th of Victoria, cap.
61), were vested in them for the purposes of certain
public improvements mentioned in that act, to take
the whole of certain valuable freehold and leaaebold
property of the appellant situated in the city of London,
pursuant to their notice to take the same. The appellant
contended that the Corporation had impropey included in
that notice • large part of his property which they did not
require for the purposes of the said act, with the intention
f handing it over to the Metropolitan Railway Company,
in pursuance of an agreement entendintobetween the Cor-
poration and the railway company. He therefore contended
that the Corporation should be restrained from taking more
land under their notice than they actually required for the
purposes of the Holborn Valley Improvement Act. The
appellant's property included in the notice °unaided of
two blocks of land and buildings. One of those blocks,
which alone was in dispute, was partly freehold and
partly leasehold, and was situated on the north side
of Wort-etteet, running out of Farringdon-road in an
easterly direction towards the new meat market
authorised by parliament to be constructed on the
site of Smithfield-market. The appellant did not
object in the suit to the second block, nor the one-
seventh of the first block being taken by the
Corporation towards the formation of a new street, which
they were authorised by their act to construct. For this
purpose only a triangular slip of the appellant's land would
be required, and he was anxious to retain the remainder.
The formation of this new street was authorised by Parlia-
ment, by the " Metropolitan Meat and Poultry Market
(Western Approach) Act, 1862," and the Corporation were
by that act intrusted by Parliament with compulsory powers
for that purpose, extending over certain lands, including
those of the appellant. Some time before the passing of
that act the corporation, who, under parliamentary autho-
rity, held shares to a very large amount in the Metropolitan
Railway Company, had entered into an agreement with
that company to the effect that the corporation should
take under the act the whole, or a large portion, of the
lands over which it gave them compulsory powers, includ-
ing the appellant's land, on the north side of West-street,
and should retain so much as they required for the
actual site of the new street, and hand over the whole
residue to the railway company for the sum of 70,0001.
This agreement was executed between the corporation and
the railway company in June, 1862, rather more than a
month before the pissing of the Act of 1862, the examine
of the powers of which it professed to anticipate. The act
having passed, the corporation served • notice upon the
appellant in April, 1863, of their intention to take his pro-
perty under the powers and for the purposes of the act of
1862. The appellant thereupon filed his bill against the
corporation to restrain them from taking more of his land
than they required for the purposes of the act, and particu-
larly to prevent their taking it for the purposes of handing
it over to the railway company. The injunction was re-
fused by Vice-Chancellor Wood, but was granted on
by the Lords Justices, who were of opinion that the -
potation, having previously to the passing of the act of
1862 and before their notice to the app lent of April,
1863, entered into an agreement with the railway com-
pany, such notice was not given in due exercise of the
powers vested in them by that act. This decree now re-
mains in force, and formed the subject of the second appeal.
On the 30th of July, 1864, two days after the decree, the
corporation served the appellant with a second notice of
their intention to take the whole of his property under the
powers of the Holborn Valley Improvement Act,which had
just been passed ; but the appellant believing that it was
the intention of the corporation to hand over the property
to the railway company, filed another bill to restrain the
corporation from taking his land. The Master of the Rolls
dismissed the bill,and hisdecizionvras affirmed upon appeal
by the Lords Justices. This was the judgment sought to be
reversed by the first appeal. The appellant alleged that
he should be plead in a much worse position by having
his lands taken under the Holborn Valley Improvement
Act, than if they were taken by the railway company un-
der the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 418.45), as under
that act he had the option of going to arbitration, which he
had not under the former.
The case was argued in March last by Mr. Rolt, Mr. Sel-
wyn and Mr. Bagshowe, who appeared for Mr. Galloway;
04; and the Attorney General, Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Jarrell, Mr.
Swanton and Mr. Bristow., for the Corporation and the
Metropolitan Company.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford, sad Lord Kings-
down, before whom the case was argued, now delivered
judgment, and directed that the appeal of Mr. Galloway
should be dismissed ; deciding against him in the case in
which he had succeeded below, and affirmed the decree
which had been adverse to him, the effect being that the
Corporation will be entitled to take his land under the
powers of their act, and the injunction to restrain them
from doing so was refused. He was also ordered to pay
all the costs below, and of the appeal.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Baneo.—(Before Justices Blackburn, Shea, and
Lush.)
The Lord Chief Justice vas unavoidably absent from in-
disposition.
SHAW P. THE LANCASHIRZ AND TOMMIE" RAILWAY
COMPANY._

Mr. Edward James, Q.C., said this was the case known
in Liverpool as " The cowbeel and trotter case."
It was an action to recover compensation for
personal injuries, tried before Mr. Justice Lush,
at Liverpool, when the jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages 1,000/. He moved for
a rule to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, on the
ground that the damages were excessive. The case was
merely the assessment of damages for the loss sustained
from the plaintiff's inability to attend his business, as well
as for the personal suffering. The plaintiff's wife
kept a stall in Liverpool market, and sold tripe, cow-
heels, and sheep's trotters, by which she said she
made 1001. per annum, but that as her husband during his
illness was unable to collect and purchase sheep's trotters,
cow heels, and dress tripe, she had none of those articles
to sell, and the plaintiff was deprived of the profit she
used to make upon their sale.
Mr. Justice Lush—As the husband could not buy hides
' and skins she could not get the trotters.
Mr. James said there was another branch of the busi-
ness for making of neat's foot oiL What the defendants
complained of was that the charrs were excessive for a
man in the plaintiff's station of hfe. The plaintiff kept
no books, and he was unable to produce any documents
upon which the jury could form any opinion as to his
real income.

Rule granted-
tvreAuse v. FLU...CIR.—LIBEL.
- -•

Dr. Keneal;;;;;I this was an action for libel against the
A thenmum, tried at the last Surrey Assizes before Lord
Chief Justice Erle, when the plaintiff
in was non-suited.
He now moved for a rule nisi • upon the defendant
to show cause why the nonsuit shout not be set aside and
a new trial had.
Mr. Justice Lush—l think I had better not take part in
this case.
Dr. Reneely—There cannot be the least possible objec-
tion to your lordship remaining.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—ls it not better, for the obvious
reason why Mr. Justice Lush wishes not to take part in
this case, to postpone the motion until the court is more
fully constituted ?
Dr. Keneuly said he would be guided entirely by
their lordships' suggestions. He felt certain there was not
a member of the bar who would have the slightest objec-
tion to Mr. Justice Lush taking part in such a case.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said they repeatedly commented
on the impropriety in inferior jurisdictions of a father
sitting as a justice in his son's use, and be did not think
a superior court should do so. It was for the learned
counsel to say whether he would go on with two judges
or wait until the court was more fully constituted.
Dr. Kenealy said that as the case raised a very im-
portant question he would rather wait.
The motion was accordingly postponed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Baneo.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)

HOCEREHALL T. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANT.
This was an action for the non-delivery of certain sheep
within a reasonable time, and was tried before Mr. Baron
Bramwell at Chester, when a verdict was taken by OCMIRRE
for the plaintiff, with damages agreed upon, leave being
given to the defendants to move to enter a verdict for them
on the third plea, if the court thought it was an answer to
the action.
Mr. Bowen in now moving accordingly said that the
plea in question raised the point whether a proclamation
Issued by the mayor of Wrexham, under the orders
in council, prohibiting the bringing of cattle and
sheep within the borough in consequence of the
cattle plague was a good defence to the action.
The sheep were sent by the London and North Western
Railway from Manchester to Chester, to be forwarded on
from there to Wrexham by thedefendante' line. At Chester
the trucks containing them were hooked on in the ordinary
course to a train belonging to the defendants, which went
to Wrexham, but when they arrived there they found they
could not deliver them to theplaintiff owing toths mayor's
proclamation.
Mr. Baron Martin did not think that the proclamation
prevented the company giving up the sheepto the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron Bnimwell said the defendants were in this
thlemina,that ff they had brought the sheep within the limits
of the borough, they had already infringed the order in
council, and might as well have delivered them up, and if