The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-14 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCREQUER.—Nov. 13.

Sittinp in Beneo.—( Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barone Bramwell and Chappell.)

RAGNALL AND ANOTHER T. TER LONDON AND NORTH
WESTERN RAILWAY CONPANT.-RAILWATII AND NINE!.

This was a special case stated for the opinion of this
court on a point of law of some importance as affecting the
oonstruction of railways.
The cams came on for trial before Mr. Justice Blackburn
at the Staffordshire Spring Assizes, when • verdict was
entered for the plaintiffs subject to a special case. The de-
fendeute company WAS formerly called the Grand Junction
Railway Company, which was empowered by art of par-
liament to construct a line from Warrington to Birming-
ham, which was afterwards taken possession of by the
London and North Western Company. The plaintiffs were
the proprietors of a colliery at Willeohall, in the county of
Staffers!, and the mines lay under the defendants' railway.
At this point there is a brook over which the railway was
canted by a level bridge constructed by the Grand Junction
Railway Company, and since used by the present defendants.
la 1858 the plaintiffs, who had for twoyesrabeforebeen work-
Mg their mines, were desirous of working them under the
railway, and of this they gave due notice to the defendants.
They made no offer to purchase the mines, and
the consequence of the workings was that the
cutting sunk in several place., the rock cracked
in several places, and the water felling on the rail-
way flooded the mines. On the 14th August, 1861, the
water of the brook, owing to heavy rains, rose above the
girders of the bridge, and, flowing down the cutting, the
plaintiffs were drowned out of some of their workings, and
suffered the damage complained of. At the trial the learned
judge put certain questions to the jury as to the aura of
the damage, and ou then replies directed • verdict for the
plaintiffs, subject to a special case raising the question for
the consideratmn if this court, whether on the above state
.4 facts the plaintiff. are entitled to recover, in which event
the question of damages was reserved for arbitration.
Mr. Gray (with whom was Mr. Macnamara), on behalf of
the plaintiffs, now contended that the railway company on
acquiring the land only paid for the surface, and not for the
mines, or for the risk of damage, and further that ea they
had not purchased the mines, the proprietors wore entitled
to work them to the best advantage.
Mr. Sevin (with whom was Serjeant Pigott), on behalf of
the defendants, submitted they ware not liable, as the facts
did sot show any neglijence in the construction of their line,
which was made according to act of parlinnent, and that
the plaintiffs themselves caused the mischief in working the
mines, the non-purchase of which did not give the plaintiffs
any cause of action.
The arguments having concluded,
The Lord Chief Baron said the court would take time to
consider their judgment.
Judgment reserved accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Noy. 13.
(Before Mr. Commitaiocer Goulburu.)

IX It J. T. HIDul.-THE "LITZ ASIICRANCZ TREANWIT."
The benkrupt was a builder, of Forest hill and elsewhere.
This was the examination nicotine. The debts are 2,9401.,
of which warily is held for about 7201. There are no
available sweets.

Mr. 0. Lawrence, for the assignees, said that the accounts
diachnied a very unfortumtte result of the trading ; but se
there was no reason to believe that the accounts were
insentient% there WAR no objection to the bankrupt
PlNalteeeMr. on behalf of the representative of creditors
al the Life Assurance Treasury Company (now in courts of
winding upl, claimed a sum of 1,50(. from the bankrupt,
who had held 2U,000 shares in the company, and naked for
as adjournment.
Mr. Tacker, representing the official liquidator of the
oompamy,alawished for an adjmuninent.
Mr. Ham said that there was a very large number of ere.
ditors of this bank, or "treasury," sail they had been
mainly induced to part with their money ou the faith of the
bankrupt and others being directors.
Hie Honour granted an adjournment for three weeks, and
allowed a claim to be put ou the Ma on behalf of the com-
pany, the mutter being subject to future investigation.