The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-25 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTEBDAY.

larrneos re BANCO Arran Tsar.
Too QUANN V. Tun NSWISARKIIT RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Justice Puttees delivered judgment in this cast. A
mesdames had been granted eating upon the company to
remove certain obstructions which they had caused on a
highway near one of their stations. In its return to the
manduna, the 'curtsy justified under an order made by
the Quarter Sessions, pursuant to the 6 and 6 William IV.,
e. 60, for stopping up Ud highways and making
new ones. The prosecutor demurred to the ratan.,
and the question raised was whether tte order in question
was good, and justified the defendant in obstructing the old
highway. The older directed the new highway to be made
according to the plan annexed thereto, with the reservation
that no budding@ were to be pulled down, the return show-
ing that the new highway had ben made pursuant to the
order. The question wee whether the limitation introduc. d
into the order was justifiable, and the court was of opinion
that it was not. The act required new roads to be
substituted for old ones under certain regulations,
end one of these regulations was that the consent
of the parties interested shosld be obtained. In
this cue there was • deviation in the order from the
hae origiaally agreed upon, and the court wu of opinion
that, on that ground, the order was bad. In emote of this
hied the court was bound to lay down a salad rule of con-
struction. The judgment of the eoart newt, therefero, be
for the crown, and • peremptory mandamus must issue.
THE QUERN V. rue COMMISSIONNAS OF WOODS AND
_ Founavis.

Mr. Justice Pettus= also delivered judgment in this cue.
A mandamus had been obtained against the eefendants,
c-Innianding them to Wee their warrant to the fin. riff of
Surrey to summon a jury to emu the value of certain lands
belonging to a Mr. Bridges, under the act for constructing
Betimes Park. It appeared from the mandamus and the
return that Mr. Bridges had bad notice that his land
would he required for the proposed park, and that Mr.
Bridges had sent in hi. claim for compensation. The claim was
not acceded to, and the swam Oslo" e rs when called upon re (wed
to take the necessary steps fur summoning a jury to ascer-
tain the value of the land. He had accordingly applied
for a mandamus to compel them to do 94. These facts apt
poring, together with the additional fact that the eons-
niusionen had no funds available for the purchase of lend,
the question raised was, whether the commissioners, alter
having given notice, were bound to go on and
complete the contract. Had this bran the cue of a
private railway company, the return would have
been had, for the parties would have stood in the
relation of vendors and purchasers. But the court was of
'pinion that there was a difference between the eau of a
private company and •• body of public commissioners. In
the latter case the notice was no more than a notice that the

commissioners were ready to treat for the purchase of the
land, and it would t • contravening the inknticn of the
legislature, to construe the giving of such • notice
with the completi•a of a contract ter the purchase. Nor
would it be say benefit to the prosecutor to make
the mandamus peremptory, unless it should go further and
command the payment of the value of the land when it
should have beea assessed. If there was any hardship in
the case, it aro•• from the statute, not from the notice.
The opinion of the court was, that judgment should be for
the defendants.