The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-07 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Ihrmsee sa Iseco.—Etroaa Ma. JoancoCasas Jeenca
WILLIAM, AID /12..141T1C1 MIL/OVID.
BUIGIOW O. THE blaaremagrea AND SIIIPPTULD RAIL-
WAY COMPANY AND OTHINL—ACTION FOS ONSTIOCTING
A PARTY IN BUILDING A BRIDOII ACROSS A CANAL.
This was an setioa which had been tried before Lord
Campbell at the last wire at Derby, where a verdict was
found fur the plaintiff, with nominal damsel.
In the course of the present term Mr. Whitehurst, Q C.,
moved for and obtained a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be entered for the defendants, or
a new trial had, en the ground of 'misdirec-
tion. The declaration set forth that the defendants
had obstructed the plaintiff in making a bridge aver the
Chmteefield-canal, which he claimed the right to build
under the act of parliament which authorised the construc-
tion of the canal. The defendants pleaded "not guilty,"
" that the plaintiff was not portaged of the land abutting on
the canal," that "the present bridges over the canal
were not higufficint," that "it had not been toned
and adjudged that a new bridge was neeerary," and that
" the plaintiff had not determined to make the bridge of the
game construction as those already existing." It appeared
at the trial, that the plaintiff owned • colliery on the
south side of the canal and had iron work. on the north
mide of it. He did not, however, occupy lands
immediately abutting oa the canal; but the occupiers
of those land. bad not in any manner oppcsed the plaintiff
building the bridge. It appeared that the defendants had
bought up the anal, and that the plaintiff was liable to pay
toll for carrying coals across it, art to maps payment of
this toll he had endeavouredtobuild a bridge over the canal,
which, he contended, he was entitled to do under the Canal
Aet. This right the railway company did not admit, and
they refused to allow the plaintiff to build the bridge ; and,
for the purpose of trying the right, he laid down some
bricks and drove in Kim pep by the side of the canal,
thus taking the first steps towards making the bridge. The
defendants directly removed the bricks and pep, upon which
the present action was brought. At the trial Loro Campbell
directed the jury, that in his opinion the plaintiff was the occu-
pier of the laud abutting on the canal, within the meaning
of the act of parliament. Lord Campbell also left it to the
jury to say whether or no the canting bridges over the canal
were sufficient for the colliery and iron works of the
plaintiff; the question reified by the pleadings being whe-
ther the bridges were sufficient for the purposes of the
occupiers of the adjoining lands. Under this dinetion the
jury found • verdict for the plaintiff. This wag the midi-
twice complained of.
Yesterday Mr. Humphrey, Q C., and Mr. Hayes showed
cause against the rule, and this morning Mr. Whitehurct,
Q.C., Mr. Miller, and Mr. Cowling were heard in support
of it.

The court, in delivering judgment, now said that they
were of opinion that the rule ought to be discharged, and
t►at the summing up of Lord Campbell was perfectly right.
The salon was brought by the plaintiff, who was the occupier
of land on both sides of the canal, on account of the defend-
ants having refused to allow him to build a bridge wow
the canal. The defendants contended that he had no right
to do so There was a strip of land between the lands of the
plaintiff which belonged to the defendants, and it they were
in Ire position of a private purchaser of land, this fact would
he sufficient to have prevented the plaintiff build-
ing his bridge, but it was clear that this rail-
way company were not in that situation, as they were
not entitled to the minerals under the canal. The dame in
question in the Canal Act empowered the owner or neaupier
of land adjoining the canal to build a bridge at his own
',pease, it the existing bridges were insufficient.
The court said that the issues raised upon this clause had
been rightly found by the jury, and correctly left to them by
Lord Campbell. The rule must %horsier* be discharged.
Rule discharged accordingly.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

THIS DAY.

OLD COURT.
Barn. Tin RICORDIL
CHARGE OF STEALING BOOKS.

J. Kennedy, 24, a respectably-dressed young man, was
indicted for stealing two printed books, the property of IL
James._

Mr. Rabmoon defended the prisoner.
Ii appeared that the prosecutor is a surgeon, living in
Artillery-place, and on the 7th March the prisoner called upon
Dim, and on being shown into his consulting room he stated
that he had come to make an appointment for a private
interview with a young friend who was suffering from some
diseases and who wished to consult him, and it was arranged
that he was to bring him at seven o'clock in the evening.
The prisoaer then went away, and directly afterwards two
medical books were mimed from the library in the consulting-
room. Nothing more wee seen of the prisoner until the sth
April following, when he went to another surgeon named
Courtney. is Finsbury.-terrace, and told the same
story *bout a you.og friend desiring to consult him, but
Mr. Courtney, haviogirectived information of what had
occurred at Mr. James's, detained the prisoner, and told
him he shoild take him to Mr. James's, upon which the
prisoner begged for God's sake that he would not give him
into custody, and admitted that he had stolen the backs
from his surgery.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was proved to
have been before convicted of an offence of • similar cha-
racter, and there was also an other indictment against him
for a felony of the same kind.
The prisoner b, gged for mer ~ and asserted that at the
time he committed the offence he was strider the influence of
opium, which eft sted his mind, a.od rendered him incapable
of controlling his actions.
The itaieerder said this might be an excuse for a single
act, but he had been proved to bare dome the same thing
several times.
_

The prisoner said that upon livery °cassias he was under
she same influence.

The Recor-ler &Sid that as this was the ease, the protec-
tion of the property of tie public required that he should be
prevented from taking opium, and thee he would not be
able to commit friary.
The prisoner was then sonic •cud to be imprisoned and kept
to hard iaboar for fifties ntoati'll.

THE NURSE FOR THE NEW Selox OF ROYALTY.—
Wei stated some time ago our belief t hat her most gracious
Majesty had determined that one of Cambria's deughters
should act as foster mother to the topes. tad royal stranger
We can now coati featly announce that this high honour
has fallen to the lot of a native of Llano', dd, in the Count,
of Denbigh. Jane Jones, the party in ques•tioa, whose Ori-
ginal name was Lloyd, lived so servant • few years ago in
the family of Mr. Ezra !whew', draper, St. &Wt. She
I:llittPd service with the best possible character, end married
an industrious and respectable man, now in the ereployment
of ;he Chester and Holyhead Railway Company, at the
uree;tlield station, liolywell. Queen Victoria's nurse will be
a real' • Jenny Jones."—Cornarems herald.

corrom MARKET.-11Avan, MAT 6.
The within troittinues extremely brisk. 8411. last week.
10,000 bales. 13,!1,1 yesterday, 2,000„ at • rise of one franc.
13mok in the port, 68,600 bales.