The Express.
London, England, 1861-12-25 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMPANT7

This was a motion to restrain the Londoo and North
Western Railway Company from taking into their hoods the
duties of loading and unloading the goods traffic at their
London stations on the let January, 1662, and from inter-
fering with the loading and unloading of goods traffic there
by the plaintiffs. It appeared that on the let January,
1858, an agreement wan, entered into by the company of the
first part, and Messrs. Bazendale (who are better known as
eickford and Co.), and the plaintiffs, of the second part, by
which the parties of the second part undertook the duties
of merchandise agents, the company conferring that office
upon them. Their duties were to be the collecting and dr
livery of goods, &c., in places within seven miles of the com-
pany's line, and the loading and unloading of goode at the
stations. The agreement contained provisions for effecting
these purposes and for carrying out the details of the
scheme. The only clause material for the purpose of this
report was that providing that io the event of the company
taking the duties of loading, &c., into their own hands,
they should take certain stock, ha, "it being hereby de-
clared a, understood between the parties hereto that it is
not the intention of the company to take such duties into
their hands mike* their interests shall appear to them ab-
solutely so to require in consequence of such duties
not having been satisfactorily performed by the
agents." In the month of September the company
resolved that the duties of the agents were not
satisfactorily performed, and gave notice to the plaintiffs
that they would take the leading and unloading into their
ova hands on the Ist January, 1562. No ground for soak
decision of the company wee given to the plaintiffs, sad
they therefore tiled the present bill to uphold their right.
under the agreement.
Mr. Holt, Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Speed, Mr. J. H. Taylor,
and Mr. Fisher, were in themes.
The Vice. Chancellor said that from the outwit he had
been impressed with the difficulties with which the plain-
tiffs had to contend, but he had felt their claim was one
which the mut would, if possible, support, and hence be
had determined to hear the ease fully argued. The mote,
however, that he saw of the ease the greater did the diffi-
culties of it appear to him. Eves assuming that the notice
to determine the agreement was irregular, the plaintiffs
could Dot support their claim to an injunction. This was
determined in a similar case decided by the Lords Jus-
tices. In such a ease damages were the method of
relief. The motion must therefore be refused, but the costs
must be costs in the cause.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Bofors the Judge OniWary.)
DM= V. MIMI AND 110111.
Oa the atotioa of Dr. Philliatore, Q. 0.,
The Court mated the petiticeer • rule nisi for a new
trial, cm the pou that the verdict acquitting the mopes-
dent had bendagainst the weight of evidence.
WEINMAN' (MAIMIDM N. WEITICIATH AND CHAPMAN.
The Marquis of Westmeath prayed for • dissolution of his
ea the vetted of Lady Westmeath's adultery
with Edward Chapatis, sad shamed 5,000/. as
deaseem
Oa the =Mos of Dr. Deems,
The Court ordered the ease to be tried before • special
Jury.