The Express.
London, England, 1868-12-22 00:00:00

I) EDITION.

I.IIIiENCL-(THIS DAY.)

:QUIT] COURT.
,•-chaueeller err It. *dins.)
u. EARL Or LONeind.n.—JUDO.
ft iort.
Ir. id'aef. and Mr. Molinsey for the
I. Mr. Wickert. and Mr. Davey for
h was elaborately argued during
long %wain" his Monour gave j udg-
-1 Le obje.i of the suit was to prevent
f • bulwark or jetty in the river
Nemo.% the estates of the plain-
Mui.u-ey) and defendant. • few
of Ca. hale, the bill alleging that
ranee a d:version of the tidal
,:iudolued channels, to the II•ri0411 in-
the plani:ifs property and to the
rive:. 'lle plaintiff is the owner of
in considerable value, on the north
~ver. and tin- defendant is the owner
o. lest bank. The Edda is a
tide tfoir:i with considerable rapidity
tate. of this plaintiff and defeisdant,
ei,oresenug upon, the lands of both.
e.gEt intent, and their predecessors, to
have been in the habit
:‘• dive weeks, called bulwarks,
rte th.if his have been wholly erected
.n:et c tug with the bed of the river,
the detendant and his predecessors
r• on the south side which have pro.
u:-tame into the bed of the river.
taw two estate* is from 19i1 to 200
;eta. tAmplaints have been made for
le encroachments by the defendant
th river have had the effect
to. plaintiff's land to • greater
ild have been done by the
Cr, and it was stated that the marsh
nisisted of a soft, rich soil, very Tale-
arposcs. This bi:l was filed in February,
tine of the defendant proceeding to corr-
.., t a law Jett). winch it was proposed to project
vet a hundred yap., into the heel of the river ; and it
for an it jur.4 to prevent the construction of
at or any ,nir.i.ar :e:ty. for the removal of so =L eh of
• r work as von-nude& and for damages and
rats of the stilt T e defendant, by his answer, justified
Le wink as a Foper protection to his estates ; contended
at Le ha, i, ea, rlifLt to construct the jetty, and de-
• that it metal the plaintiff's property, or interfered
th. the tavi;at:on of the river.
11. e It. e-Ctencellor, after careful consideration of the
✓ ,cieutitic and other evidence produced on both
• c=dire to the consinaiou that, though the jetty had •
to throw, and probably did throw, the water
•: icrce upon the plaintiff's land, it had not
/„1 wn that the land had been washed away to a coati-
_ rl2 .1 greater extent than before. But no riparian pro-
....hid without the consent of the opposite
trinnetor encroach upon the channel of •
• : : river, and his honour was of opinion that the
N•r. ruc:ple applied to tidal or navigable rivers. The
• therefore, was entitled to the relief he asked,
• . oudi be bad not established • ewe of very ma-
: ... 11.-iry. the defendant having persisted in the orec-
Ji•try notwithstanding repeated remonstrance.
• g icf,,ed a ieasonable offer to refer the matter
• 2 t! .1. pendent engineer, must pay the costs of the
•

. Cr timeline HORT= r. THE KETROPOILITAN
PIzYC.ICT MA.II.MAY COMPANY.
iv a opertal motion for en injunction to restrain
•• L-auts hum epeuing their railway for traffic
•.c Lipen,ation to the plaintiffs for their
t i,en I.y the company bad been properly
...d and the ptucha-e money paid. The land in
• 1. 1- situated sitar Victoria-street, Westminster,
• ed part of the hospital grounds. The go-
.- lair id fur it 24.6001., but upon an
• . presided over by ir. Toogood, as
v L tih hail& of Westminster. the sum
• • t y the jury was 10.4.571. The plaintiffs. on the
. a mat this court, not being presidal over by
bauiff„ was incompetent to decide
ti• is, applied to the Court of Que-u's
..t.d oltamed a rule Ina, calling upon
• L.lauts to show taws why a writ of
• 4. sheul.l not issue. They contended that as the act
of last }ear prevented the railway company
. :tubing over the laud of the hospital till they had
~1 rah the governors for the value. and as the motion
e the Cow/ of Queen's Bench had stood over at the

t...t of the defendsate, the court could restrain thorn
!laming the rads ay till the matter Will.ettiod unleis
Leposited • sitar:out sum to cover the full amount
:...d- by the plaintiffs. Ma railway company were
I and to pay the 10.4731. with interird.
tilicee Laid Mr. Miller appeared for the plaintiffs,
Sir It. Palmer and Mr. -W. W. &rotten for the

ice Vice-Chalice:for, without calling upon the de-
. I:ut's couraiel, paid Le clearly of °pi-
. tl at the lurcly technical objection upon
the application was founded ought to
f, I.en taken at the opening of the in-
.: y. before the deputy high bailiff. The
.
t ate basing atquieseed in the tribunal by which
w rd bad been made, they had no right to say that
lad been no aseessinent. The court must give credit
ti e ta(e•ement, till it had been set said. by a
rrletent tribunal ; and having regard to the
• that. if the injunction were refused, the plain-
would have ample opportunity of obtaining his
while ou the other hand three would be great in-
iderve in stopping the openinx of the railway, per-
t_;,- to three weeks, after it had been aunouncsel
c. t:.e.l on lhurylay next, the motion must be dis-
: •t wth ((cit.+. the company undertaking to deposit
. •h- Londonand Westminster Bank 10,47.5/., with in-
..t . per cent., from the 14th of August,

JUDGES' CHAMBERS.

(4.'t tN t. RACHEL ismoz.-11111 111LE•31
OP ILADAXI RACHEL.

'7" • defendant. Madame Rachel, was brought up in
• -t,dy of one of the warders of Millbank Prison to enter
Ler reeogniAncee to abide by the decision of the
t of Queen's Bench on the heanng of the writ of
t7r,,ot to quash the conviction and sentence of the
l-ars' petal servitude for a misdemeanour. The defendant
ets tutoropanied by her daughter. and appeared in a bad
rate of health. scarcely able to walk. She was taken into
of the rooms of the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr.
. ruton, the commivioner, took her recognisance in a
of 1,0001., and the re!ewe tatted from the Crown.
oe. The defendant attended in pursuance of a writ of
leas corpus. and the bail signed their recognbance yes•
Madame Bethel is therefore now out of prison.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
• :•..ngs at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Lard Chief
Justice bovill and a Special Jury.)
• III! GREAT /AMEBIC ELILWAY.--1100IILLS
ACTION YOB LIBEL.
7 wa. an action to recover damages for libel, the
s • . complained of b dig a statement that the plaintiff
e: n convicted of having travelled on the defendant's
: • without having first paid his fare. The defendant,
i • o:ed not guilty, and Luther that the plaintiff had, in
: I. en so corivict.d.
Mr. Glffestl, ' and Mr. Philbriek appeared for the
I ; and Mr. Serjt. Parry for the defendants.
Ibe plaintiff was a merchant in the City, and his ease
• iliestly this had a return-ticket from Lea-
' but ae the t,ain did not arrive to time, and as
.41 men were repairing the line. he thought that there
been an accident, and that the train would not come.
1., could obtain no information from the officials, and he
1.3. and got up to town by some other way. The next
•• he determined to try the question whether, the coat-
i t•Ly laving broken their contract on the first day, he
.e not the right to use his return-ticket
5 a future ocassion. Ile accordingly travelled
▪th it, but told the ticket collector that
Leas s ticket of the previous day. The collector refused
and afterwards the plaintiff was summoned to Ilford,
us., le the inegistrate • s,'sed against him. Soon atter-
*, aid. it was placarded at the defendants' stations that
her, of No. 3, Laurence Pountney-hill, E.C., had
Ltth charged with having travelled in a fird-class oar-
s iits nom Lea-bridge to Leaden without fint paying his
• and had been convicted in &penalty and coati. The
I eihtiff now complained that it was hard that when he
• intended to try a
_right he should be placarded as
"'Asa he had acted fraudulently.
lie Lord Chief Justice said that this case had been
argued on demurrer to a plea. No one now sup-
that there was any fraud on the part of the plaintiff,
A the be.A end of the matter would be that a juror
I* withdrawn.
sie is two of the jurors thought that there should be
's'es s sue and caution exercised in reference to placard-
.. :• the Nana* of persons along the line ; and upon this
1/4 ussien followed. In the end a juror was with-
. 'AIM it having been stated by his lordship and acceded
' L. Sire cant Parry, that the company India the
",art declined to make a charge of fraud, that they
' :dears ilasiwited it, and that there wee not the
'••• hint imputation upon the plaintiff.
:1,4,1 withdraw!).

rue in the list was too long to be tried this
'44 and two other eases on the paper went off in
' sof the non-attendance of jurors, and the
at II eel,. h. The absent jurors in these two
•ms—'l lie Mayor of London v. Candory and Glyn v.
beta. rid °nimbus Company—were Amid 'IW. each..
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
FtT7A)EISALD V. VITZOIMALD.--111STENCIN.
lu tI.I, mu. the petitioner kad sued liar husband for •
an nso king ago as I Nb 3, and having tailed? lived
~ eft Loa hum e'er aims. Having procured u"" ad

,IW' INTELI.I
Etal
:• tt
sl t:
• I. a'.l:ol'. Mr.
• 0..."
t
•
:he I
; •On of
1.5
‘.1.1
tho • ty
,„ a• ..I
:1.:.1 ...:a
: I. V TII
:0. a ,131 a• 0
.h• : I
• .0, :l.t• *la
• ti
.y. an I. t
taot
1. 1114.-I.
•
a•at rt
wttl •••,t.
I al age..
• • 4.11.10.11‘1.r•
la; tall ti
. at !ugh wet
••t tl.at the
t.., l.avi at t
a,,Arpt away t
t 1%
of the ricer
• • taltara cm,
: gt vuti: PurP°
I. -.•u. all.41:44101:1te C
a tow jetq• wl
Lt a hundred can
;:att.l for SA it
a: or guy s111:1:10
• • I