The Express.
London, England, 1866-09-21 00:00:00

THE LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER
RAILWAY.

Yesterday, at the Sheriff's Court, Red Lion-
square, before Mr. rnder-Sheriff William Burchell and a
jury, the case, " The Rev. Francis T. Blackburne and
others v. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway,"
was heard, and created considerable interest. It was a pro-
ceeding by wof elegit in the Common Pleas, on a judg-
ment for 9,000(., to obtain • charge on the surplus pro-
perty of the company advertised for sale.
Mr. Lanyon was counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Bridge appeared for Mr. Johnson, the secretary, and Mr.
Forbes, the General Manager of the Company, who had
been appointed Receivers by the Court of Chancey
Mr. Lanyon proceeded, in his address to the jury, to
explain the nature of the proceedings, and that their duty
wasto find what surplus property the company had in Mid.
diesel:, which might be made available for his clients.
Mr. Bridge wished to inform the court that he appeared
for the Receivers of the Company appointed by the Court
of Chancery, and by an order which he would read, the
Sheriff of Middlesex had been restrained from all interfer-
ewe with respect to the property of the company. The
learned counsel read the order.

Mr. Lanyon objected to his learned friend appearing in
the matter, as the Receivers were not parties before the
court, but only the company.
A discussion took plans on this point, and it was ulti-
mately ruled that Mr. Bridge had no locus standi.
Mr. Robert Vigers was called—He was with his brother,
Francis Vigers, surveyor and auctioneer to the company.
They had received instructions from the solicitors to sell
certain surplus property, and advertised the same on the
23rd of August last. He did not know of any other surplus
land but the property at Pimlico advertised to be sold.
Mr. William It. Johnson stated that he was secretary to
the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, and also one
of the receivers appointed by the Court of Chancery. He
knew of the advertisement which appeared on the 23rd of
August, but was not consulted upon it. He did not know
of any other surplus land in Middlesex, nor of any mort-
gage or charge upon it.
Mr. James Forbes said he was the general manager, and
also the other receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery.
He knew what land was in use, and did not know of any
other surplus land in Middlesex save the property described
in the advertisement. There was other property, surplus,
in Surrey and Rent. Mr. Forbes said he did not know
whether the surplus property was mortgaged.
Mr. Vigers was recalled and was questioned in reference
to the property advertised in High-street, Pimlico. He de-
clined to state the value of a plot.
On being told, however, that his refusal to give the in-
font ation required would lead to his committal for con-
tempt of court, he said the value of the plot of freehold
ground was 2001. Some freehold residences he described
and the land of the site of St. Michael's school was of
itself worth 3,000/., and 7,000/. was the value of the land
on which Trollope's yard stood. Mr. Viers asked whether
he was to go on. Only 0,0001. was required by the writ,
and he had already given evidence of property worth more
than 11,000'.
Mr. Lanyon required further evidence of the value of
the property.
Mr. Vigers gave the value of the property-2,0001. one
house, another was let at 1201. a year, and the leasehold
interest in several others he estimated at 3,000/.
. .

MT. lAnyon submitted that he had estiefactorily proved
that the property he bad described vested in the company.
Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell told the jury it was for
them to say whether they were satisfied with the evidence.
The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the evi-
dence as to the value of the property in question.
Mr. Bridge asked the court whether the property would
he handed over to the plaintiffs, as he was ready to show
that it vested in the receivers of the Court of Chancery.
Mr. Under Sheriff Burchell must decline to answer the
question. The parties could lodge a notice, if they
thought proper, at the office of the Sheriff.
The case of the Rev. Daniel O'Elough w. the London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway, was then taken. It was
on another writ of elegit, by the plaintiff, the Rev. Daniel
Oliver Elough, on a judgment deed of 2,097/. 4a. 4d., ob-
tained in the Common Pleas.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson, jun., for the plaintiff,
that the evidence given ID the former ease should rtd
.
ported into the present action.
The suggestion of the learned conned wee acted upon,
and the jury returned &similar verdict, which was entered
on the proceedings.