The Express.
London, England, 1857-07-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

THD3 DAY.

-.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Bet on Vice-Chancellor Sir W. rage Woad.)
SMITH_ V. PAST SENT RAILV, Ay.

The Vice Chancellor gave judgment in this cure, which
earn on yesterday, on motion for inPuietion to restrain the
defendants from emstruvling their railway embankments and
works through and over the property of the plaintiff, situate
flittiagbourne, so ss to approach nearer to his mill and
premises than the centre line shown in the deposited plans,
and from interfering with the plaintiff's water rights,
Plaintiff is the owner of a mill at Sittingbourns, and when
the tom y's htU was before parliament he opposed it, and
procured the insertion of a clause, 'that in the construction
of the said railway through or over the property of Edward
Smith, situate at or near Sittingliourne, the same @bill not
be constructed so as to approach nearer to the mill and pre-
mises of the said Edward Smith than the centre line shown
in the said deposited plans, without the consent in writing of
the said Edward Smith first hsd and obtained." Defendants,
however, in making their railway were, plaintiff contended,
making it nearer than the centre of the lino in the plans, and
they were filling up the spring heads.
Iho Vice-Chancellor said he did not think it hod been
shown that plaintiff had acquimeed. If the mill were at this
moment occupied he should make the defendants undertake
not to run their carriages except on the outer line. As it
was, he should direct this motion to stand over, with llbesty
to the plaint HI to bring any action be may be advised, the de-
fendant. not to plead any equitable pia., with liberty to both
parties to apply.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SECOND COURT.
(Sittings at Nisi Plias in London.—Before Mr. Juane°
Crowder and a Common Jury.)
IsIIOAD V. 1-IW.
The plaintiff in this ease WWI an auctioneer in the Poultry,
and this was an liana to try whether certain goods were, at
the time they were seined, his property.
Mr. Huggins and Mr. Petersdoiff appeared for the plain.
tlf and Mr. Overend and Mr. Doyle were for the defendant,
The plaintiff in May teat received en application from a
Mr. Cooke, for a loan of 2001., which he agreed to lend him,
and the consideration given woe a bill of rale upon Cooke'.
household furniture. On the morning of the 27th of May
last, the plaintiff handed to Cooke a cheque for 2001., and
received the bill of mile. The plaintiff's clerk went with
Cooks to the banker's, and the cheque was paid. However,
it was found that there was a writ of CleClaksil against the
good., and the uttiter entered upon that execution almost
immediately after the plaintiff Ind lent the money, and b
was therefore obliged to bring the present action to recover
the goods.
For the defendant no witnerees were rolled.
Mr. Doyle, however, addressed the jury, and contended
that it was a scheme between the plaintill and Cooke to defeat
the executi•n.
Mr. Justice Crowder, however, was of opinion that, no
witiseases being called, the ease was an undefended one.
The jury found a verdict fur tke plaintiff.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Cowmen Jury.)
/11.1.01 AN,' I/I:0.
Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Prentice were for the pleinliff;
and Mr. Quail for the defendant.
The action was brought upon a bill of exchange fur
1604. 10e. 7d., and there had been some plymenta,
which reduced the amount to 1201. 2e. The plain-
tiff carried on business in Cirrus-place, Fa:Awl, and the
defendant in Alderneinbury. The trial wee remarkable for
the defence set up, that the bill wee given for the accommo-
dation of plaintiff, and that he had given an I 0 U for the
amount at the limo which defendant produced.
The document turned out to be a memorandum of the
sum and the date when the bill would Le due, given by
Mr. Pillott, and to whirh subsequently defendant had at-
tacked the words "I 0 U" in ink, and " Frederick Pillot" in
penoll. Another I 0 U was produced, which had been im-
pounded by the judge of a county court, in which defendant
had taken out a plaint. Tho plaintiff swore that that was
also a forgery.
The verdict having been given for the plaintiff,
The Learned Judge raid—Perjury and forgery together
were too bad: but be would not :commit di fondant, because
it was made a point in the defence of such persons that they
could nethere a fair trial, the judge at nisi prius having
prejudged the case. The documents would be impounded,
and proceeding. couldbe token before a magistrate.