The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-11 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A cue connected with railway compensation came on
for hearing before the Lord Mayor, and appeared to excite
considerable interest. It was in the form of a summons
issued at the instance of Messrs. Meyer and Berlin, com-
mission agents and importers of foreign goods, carrying on
business at No. 1, Liverpool-street, Finsbury-square, to
compel compensation from the Metropolitan Railway Com-
pany, for certain premises in the occupation of the
claimants, and required by the company for the works
contemplated by the set under which they are incor-
porated.
Mr. C. Russell, barrister-at-law, appeared for the
claimants ; and the company was represented by Mr.
Burchell, their solicitor. When the case was called on,
Mr. Burchell took a preliminary objection to the juris-
diction of the Lord Mayor, on the ground of an informality
in the summons, and information upon which the
summons had been issued. The learned gentleman in
support of the objection cited the judgment of Lord Chief
Justice Cockburn, which had been concurred in by Mr.
Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Lush, in the case of
the Queen v. Alderman Stone, in a similar matter to the
present, and reported in the Law Journal &porta, vol.
35. After some discussion,
The Lord Mayor, after conference with the chief clerk,
decided that he would hear the facts of the case before
him prior to giving any opinion on the question of juris-
diction, which would depend upon the facts proved.
Mr. C. Russell then proceeded to open the case on the
part of the claimants, and stated that they were com-
mission agents and importers of foreign goods, and carried
on their business in three rooms at No. 1, Liverpool-street,
which they held under a Mr. Sheen, at a rental of 701. per
annum. They were yearly tenants, and with notice
from the landlord their term could not expire until
March next. Mr. Sheen had a five or six years' tenancy
to run. and the claimants still continued his tenants. On
the 27th February in the present year the claimants re-
ceived from the Metropolitan Railway Company a notice,
stating that they required to purchase and take the
premises occupied by the claimants, for the purposes of
their railway as shown in the plans and schedules lodged
with the clerk of the peace. The notice to " treat
and agree " was issued under the provisions of the
121st section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,
of 1845, and in reply to it the claimants sent in
their claim for compensation as tenant, at will.
The claim was for 1001. for loss of premises,
and 2501. for loss by removal, transfer of stock, and inter-
ference with their business, making the amount of the
total claim 3501. On receipt of the claim the company
deputed Messrs. Capes and Harris, the accountants, of
Adelaide-place, London-bridge, to examine the books of
the claimants in order to ascertain and report upon the
validity and fairness of the claim. This was done, and the
report was made by those gentlemen, after en examination
of the books of six days' duration. After the matter had
stood over for some time, the claimants believing that
their premises would be taken by the company under the
notice to " treat and agree," actually took other premises
for their business, and were now actually paying double rent
in consequence of the noo.fuUllment of their notice. He
should prove these facts, and having done so, he should be
quite content to take s formal order, subject to a special
case on any question of law thatmight arias foe the decision
of any of the rarsioceoarts at Wootrdnoko..