The Express.
London, England, 1850-11-13 00:00:00

SPORTING.

UVEIPOOL AUTUMN MEETINO.-TUBSDAT.
By Elestrie Terraph.)
MUM HANDICAP HOWL* SWIIPOTAILBS Of 10 lOTA.
MOIL Nab 40 d ; swan to pay 10 son. towards
foroosos, ad the snood to sea his stake. Two nil , over
di Inman (10 subs.)
Kr. Desna% b f Little Quedn, 4 yrs, 9d 121 b 1
Yr. Pisces eh p Zedsuesk. sit d, Ost 121 b
Kr. Ksintrnoht's Yoe., Donbass, 4 yrs, Slat 910 3
Burma HANDICAP of 16 ion. each, 10 It, sad 5 only if
&Wand, with 60 added. Ones round and a 4.. (16 nbe,
$ if whom deckled)
Sir. Heripares Boot, 4 yn, lot 31b 1
2
Mr. J. Ilseep's Bsetn, 3 yrs, het
Kr. ltiskeby's Ada Mary. 4 yn,en 101 3
Pour otans started.
OPTIONAL SELLING STANZA, Of 6 OPTI. sack, and 30
shied; tyr elda, Tet 12Ib ; three, lin Tub; four, 10st 61;
fee, tort 31; in sad .aod, llet 21's; suns. Ar., allowed 2
dte.; teener to b sold for 1601. ; eas nits ; wen won
by Mr. thaitlet. Wisner D.wurs, egad; basting Portia. 4
yre: Helfer-6k I.er. and lour whets.
Hush. Pula, HANDICAP won by Pilot, butts'
Alltooe Of J 5..... sod Duabory.
ONAND ALTCMN STISPLI CMAIIN (UPINOTTOW).—VSS.

WARWICK ANI) LRAMLNCTON NOVEMBER

31‘1111140;:timsDAT. Noy. 19.
AOCRETEMOIN VOR Taa OWE WARRICK MEDICI!.
riu MOM w,itkt seseming hay*: boss under bet 714, is
los bum nisei N en 718, mid the 'dim Is proportles.)—
iiiiimsbid, yrs, 34 710; lisby„ 4 pi, Stt 610 Coast-
Medi, 6 In, 6;1 ; Osisktsll.4 yrs, 7st 131 b; Cletlismker, 4
pejo% 1318; Ilisorstana,4 yrs, 7st 121 b; Dbastrisy, 4 yrs, 7.8
BM; Deer, 4 yr.,7ss 818; Dliselter. 6 yn, 7st 31111; Brit;
6 yr% 7st 421; ; Wood'ark, 4 yn, 7st 610 ; Oriel, 4 yrs, 754
66; AO. 6 yrsi, 7.1 31b; CILIA Justin, 3 yrs, 7st ; Ztdaq
3 yrk list 1110; Dustray, 3 yrs, Get 1014; Forssrer, 4 yrs,
liss 1014; A1...,0 3 re. bet 1010; lira, 4 yn, 9.8;
Miai-
-4 yn, Ist Sib ; Conk, 3 yn, 61: 210; Valeatiss,
3 yrs, 6st.
AOCIPTAIICIE YOR Tlll LVAIIIIROTON WELTER CCP—
bieliest wdgbt asevtiag being under 11et 101 h, it bss
los ni.e4 to that Inlaid, sad the otkers In proportion)
Cleilmorkw, 4 yrs, llst 1010; Cotkta.l, 4 yrs, lls; 810 ;
Ai* 6 t., 1114 Co; Barosess, 4 yn, 11.1 314 ; A4ministrs-
kr, sped,p, :10121b; 134ipas, 4 yr., llse ; Chief Jenne, 3vs
41. 1210; Mageete,, 4 en, 100618; Eve. 4 yn, 10et 61e;
Baas Doer, mod, 13st 310 ; Sisk, 3 7n,10n. —Tb• us: pay
6 ism. tub.

?Lain *nteliffstace.
EQUITY COURlS.=YrirrumAy.

RIMER rue Loan emaciates.
Tug ATTORNIT-OISIILAL IP 11l RABAT NORIVIIIIN
RAILWAY COMPAZT.
Mr. WI/grata eats* isle wart is the COATI. of the day, and
app;ied re. lava to Rive notice of motion for Thursday is
the above case, to dietitian' as order pronounced in the coons
of the manias by Viee-ChanorUor Knight Broom The
matter Wee et great ileportasoe.
The Lord Chaseelloe granted die 61)0r:stile.
Itavou Vics-Cwestese Knorr Bows.
ATTOMIT•0111111IAL V. Gam? NOSTIIIIIX RAILWAY

The late Bishopef Nanvistt (Bishop Stanley), had nicked
the license given by Cis predecessor, Bishop Bethune, as far
is the (inseam of salary was concerned, by ening the mate
t Win Sossertoe taff. eat, instead of 6W., welch he wed
to Nonce. The plaintiff bating refused to pay the higher
amount cf salary, the dstendaat had appealed to the bishop,
who loud a gammons t, the plaintiff, and the ease
hawks bees beard the bishop determined that the money
a=illaisa emoill that it ought to be paid. The bishop
s Wald his moeltion to the plaintiff, and upon his
hay rfar the moony • sequestraiion was pat is force
=me ,by virtue of which the defendant received
Ly e the tithes. The plaintiff this brought the
Muni edits of sunsuit.
Mr. Q C., on behalf of the plaintiff, now argued
that the seqsisetrutios was void, because the bishop had
tared la en Wesel tanner. Although the Incumbent of
West Somerton was non-resident in print of fact, he was
resident in point of law, inasmuch as Bishop Bathurst
had united the mussy of Combos with the perpetual
cum, of West Ileaserton. That bishop bad frequently
made seines of this sort in the diocese of Norwich, and it
was very important to bare the question decided a, to who.
they or not it was legal to make seek unless. In point of
law the plaintiff was Lot nos resident at West Somerton.
biome' he did duty in the perish of Coombes, which had
been joined, by the bishop, with West Somerton, of which
parish the defendant was the curate. The bishop kid power
to join the two benefices together, so u to make them as one.
This could be done with the content of the patron of the
living, the incumbent, and sometimes that of the crown. It
was to be taken for granted in the present case that these
conditions had ell been complied with, bemuse soaks., had
bees shown to the cinerary. The bishop could not give
diemmationsfor pl./elides of livings, as that power bad be-
longed to the Pope only. in olden times. or to the Archbishop
of Ceaterbuty,ss the Pope's legate. In support of his argument
the learned emusel cited from Otheon's Cole:, pages 944 and
961; Watson's Clergymen's Law, pate 19; " the Queen v.
Page sad the Bishop of London" (Crook's Eouabetb,
page 719); and " Austen v. Twine" (Crook's Elizabeth,
pits 60n).
The Solicitor-Oenual, on the part of the defendant, urged
that the practice of joining parishes in the manner dr
scribed must have originated in the see or Norwich, and was
peculiar to that see, as it did not exist in any other diocese.
The plaintiff did not reside at the curacy of West Somerton,
and the bishop finding that he was note-resident anted es
he was authorised to do by the 1 and 2 Vie, c. 106, ad
made certain provisions wito regard to the augmentation of
the curate's salary. The set of parliament against dispenaa
dons trout:nod the power of the Pope in certain cases to
the Archbishop of Cut Omni. The question wee whether
or not, in point of law, there could be said to be a union be-
tween these two parishes. He (the Solieitor.General) con-
tended that there could cot, as it appe.red from the docu-
ment (salad the Act of Union, that the bishop had never
contemplated the union of the two parishes, except during
the incumbency of the particular person to whom the instru-
ment was eddreseed. There was another question which
was, whither there meld be such a thing as a union between
two partible for e certain time only. He submitted that
there could not. The plaintiff's counsel had amused that
the consent cf the patron bad been obtained, but the burden
of proving tint fact was upon the plailtiff. His learned
friend had cited several old authorities, but they were before
the Wormation, when great abuses existed in the church ;
and those abuses were of an gross a nature that • precedent
vainest be towed for slated anything. The learned Solicitor-
General concluded by submitting that the judgment of their
lordships ought to be for the defendant.
M. O'Malley having bristly replied,
The Come said they would take time to consider their
judgment.

.-81411.: if-MA/lON.
The Vice•Charmellor gave jot meat in this caw, which
has been before the nut on asocial mad ne open a motion
der a r werration for a breach of lajuovion, alleged to be
eiratedued by the defendaute in obstructing • lane near
Signitewade.
Ws HMSO end that the first question wan, whether a
breath of the iejunc' ion had been wilfully committed by the
ompeay, es to which it laical at once be owed to be per-
betty skier, that if tee injunction had been broken by them
they hod broken it erllmtly, with direct and full notice of It,
and in disregard, perhaps it out to be said in defiance, of the
plaintiff's warnings and remonstrances. Now, it was c
watts! free from doelit, that bob on the 29th of °t-
tole r, and on the 31. t of July last, the defendant., by
their agents or servants, were obstructing or Immo-
ing the turnpike road call, d Crab lane. and it not
rendering it Ins snare than it was when first interfered with
by the deteadasts. wen at least binteriog or preventing ew-
eaves or pueengers from tinder and repricing in the sem
awning no they en 1 thersto.ore been able to pus and repast
es it. The continuance of the mune tonne ever since might Le
mitered. But, nev,etheltes, the defendants coatended that
the injanuion had not been brken. They said t bat the in-
junction had not in it anything mandatory, sie dietinpoishrl
from what was prohibitory. namely, that their rails lay in
fact upon the turnpike toed in question and meting it, were
laid the re and did cross it when the injunction was granted
and before; that whatever might have been the state of
thaws when the notice of modem for the injunetioa
mu given, the actual interferes,' and intended dealing with
the road which the intimation attributed to the defendants
vete different from any actual or intended dealing with it,
which the informant all. gill to he in breathe), the injusedoe.
The defendants also relied upon certain proceedings before
the railway COSISISOCITO, wro werinepresented to have
sanctioned the erection of certain gates, which were co..
plaint,' of, hut which were said to be material for the prates
lion of t-e lives and limbs of moil and cattle, the railway
mossier; the road on a level. Whether the injunction con-
taint .1 anything mandatory as dietieguithed from what wee
prohibitory, it woe not newasery to decide, nor was it seers.
wry to say whether the nfornient was entitled to refer to
the stew of things which related when he notice of
motion or. CO gunman was ft yen, as dultiegaished
SOS that which rained when t was granted. For
when the injuection was granted, the rails leers only
isied• oe puma, s connected with the construction of the
railway, end ant for the conveyer co of passengen or goods,
et what, in the autumn of lopitness, was called traffic
Bat the railway haying been opened for public nee in
August Ist, the defeadants had since employed the rails for
purposes eaceediag, and,i a a tense. different roe thou for
which they employed them previously ; and obetruidine
and impediment to the free we of the road were Was ceased,
to en extent materielly greater than at the time of panting
the injunction, sod in a wage differently, and this We-
perdently of the gates. But the gates, however necessary or
valuable they might be for the purpose of protecting If.
sad limb against the proceedings of the defeadaum, did, as
it agitated to him, obstruct the turnpike road in question
within the meaning of the words used in the injunction—did
create in the clearest and moat direct manner such an impedi-
ment red hindrance as the injunction had plainly forbidden.
II it were said, as it had been, that the effect of removing the
gates would be to create a state of general danger, the answer
was, that the mei oay ought to be stopped, inasmuch as it
was passing illegally toren the toed, the right over which it
was tt e t of this suit to protect. With teepee% to the,
mum et founded on the languaee of the iaformation, it
aught possibly furnish a rearm, though it did not
de ee in his opininn, for vareteg the injunction, hut
had no plate with reference to the question whether
the injunction lad been broken. The injunction pro-
hinted not merely obetrueeions of any particular kind,
let obstruction and impediment gemally. A maa
had a rapt of way ; hie n. ir. hour obstructed it wrong
Willy, and did as fur a particular !tarpon and in a par.
tentlar manner—tie peep re and manner being es te the
wan entitled to the right of way secondary or immaterial
eassideratiou, the mere obstruction being that about which
he sand and was concerned—not bemuse it was with this
view or that view, or in one form or soother, bat because it
was ea elietrutiea. Thereupon tie obtained an Jejune-don,
set against an obstruction actuated or shaped thus er thus,
het against obetruction. Upon which the eggreesor, finding
it meneleat to Interfere illegally with the right et way for
MOO other puree, to ohetroct it wegogfelly with some
Whey object, sad to mate the wrongful obstruction in a
now shape, did se, end then Melted that by the Waage of
shape sal parpow he woe clear of the injunction.
This was ea attempted view of the law which
was pnhape not wholly sew ; let which, whether
sew en old, the nun must certhinly decline adopting.
With remain the railway 0011MUIPOSIS, be assumed that
they sautisteed the opening of the railway upon the condi-
tion of the oreeticie of the gates. But if tin c SUSSIOUOri
could by a net of their' have rendered the meant we of
the turnpeke read Isertol, against the ?iglu or interests
which it writhe object of this suit to {.rated, t.ey had not
been purred to have done so, or to have intended to do so,
and the case did not appear ti have been affected by any-
thing that they had done. Giving r.o epintoe, therefore, as
to the extent of the it powers, the part of the caw concersiag
them might, in hie How er's opinion, be disclaimed from
consideration. It appeared plain that the defendants bad
broke* the injunetioa in letter and in ep:rit, and that they
lave done CC contemptuously, and that they mast be
taken as rill punning the twee course. Then came the
quietism what (if eat thing) the court ought to do Meow.-
quince, en it did net necessarily follow that the proem
asked must issue. It was upon the defendants, however, to
make a cue to exempt them from it, sad perhaps if they had
shown their gresentings not to be plainly and clearly Illegal,
that was to say, Illegal independently of any queadou of eon-
tempt, or had satisfied the court that the iejunction ought
not to have been panted at all, or ought to be dis-
solved, discharged, sr put into a shape more favourable to
the defender is than it was, or had stated that they had ap-
pealed from it or from the eider granting it, or intended to
do so, the wart might have declined or delayed directing the
meets to go. But none of these things had they done.
Oa the contrary, his Honour's belief was strengthened
of the utter Impropriety of the sets, ano that the injunction,
if it went far enough, did nut go too far. Coasidering
their conduct at once wetemptuous and illegal, wrongful
agaiast the plaintiff individually—wtoogful %whist the
Queen's subjects at large—of bad, and it might almost be
said of scandalous, "temple—whatever inconvenience might
be the consequence of acting against the defendants, on tris
eccasioo he thought it right to deal with them wording to
their merits. The consequence might possibly be to stop the
railway. Bat the answer we. that it ought to be stopped,
be it passed where it did by wrong. Tits director of the
Cellpay and their ageism could nor, on this motion, at pre-
side be committed to prison. But what could be should be
doss to repress a daring liveliest of private sad public.
*AM, in open defiance or law, authority, sad order. His
Honest then directed a sequinned= to issue.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YrirniwAy.
ierraess nt Ba.llol.—Baroas Lois Casniru, Ma. harm Casa-
=Doi. Ma. Junta Wisimum, Ass 14. iIIMOM BELL

Doom (Cum') e. MOW= (Cumi).—Alesursrr.
TOM was m oohs of mosomis lee Remy tri sod m
shod a sa soma lola The thflottom hod plosood
nos amompolL ifo OM woo Mod Wore Vi. Homo Puke
at too lot aid= Ike the meaty et Ncesik. wboa Tarok*
woo boa in *s *MI, &maim 211., el= to too
Vaof NM woos upooloi we. TM tiff mo
lmoultooS Soomolso, • posit la Mows of
Wiwi* If wait dr Mislowt s tbs Memel maw.

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 13, 1850.