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

&wiz v. Fixsx..

The argument is this case, which was an •etim for pe-
nalties for bribing one fiszby, at the election of Attwcod for
Harwich, was concluded yesterday, but the pressure other-
wise upon our space induces us to postpone • statement of
the facts until judgment is gives, which the court took time
to consider.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—TOTERDAY.
limosai a Bmico.—Bssoas Ka. !MICE NAVLS, ILL JUSTICII
CANOWILL. AND MIL JVIITICI TALPO.ID.
The court au in Ounce for the purpose of delivering cer-
tain j stigmata
Wixom. V. TU ARCHBISHOPS or C,
Yeas.

LT ANL

In this case • rule had been obtained on behalf of the de
haunts, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the
verdict should not be entered for themes the Pint and second
issues, and why a new trial should not be had. The decla-
radon consisted of two counts. The first count referred to
an act of parliament for making the Liverpool and Bury
Railway. By that act the company were authorised to pur-
chase land for the railway, but were not to interfere with
the chapel of fit Matthew, near Liverpool, of
which the plaintiff woo the =baster, without
the cement, in writing, of the Archbishop
of York and the Bishop of Chester for the time being. The
declaration averred that the plaintiff was entitled to receive
the vales of the land not forming part of the site of the
church. It appeared that the railway company had taken
down the chapel, and paid a sum of money for it, but the
complaint of the plaintiff wee that the defendants had not
awarded apropr sus to kin as the value of the land not
forming actually part of the site of the church. At the trial
the jury found • verdict for the sum of 1,6401. It wail stated
at the trial that the som awarded by the defendants for the
land in question was only 2001., and that it was worth 1,6001.
This the plaintiff complained of as a breach of duty on the
part of the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. On behalf
of the defeadants it was wounded that by the Liverpool
and Bury Railway Act the defendants were constituted the
foie judges of the value of the land in question, and that as
it was land used for spiritual purposes, it therefore was not
as valuable as other land.
The Court said that they were of opinion that the duty of
the defendants was properly to ascertain the value of the
land is peados, and that they had been pity of a broach
of duty in that respect. The second point wu that the
indict was against the evidence, but it was not necessary to
advert to that part of the ease, because the defendants had
failed oa the lint ground, and the rule mot consequently
be diseharged.—Rule discharged.
Tan MAYOR OF LONDON W. PARIUNSOX.—ACTION TOR
CoaL Doss.
The question in this case was whether or not the cargo of
a ship called the Countess of Malsnesbury, which consisted
of patent fuel, was liable to pay any coal duty on imbuing
the port of London, on amount of the patent fuel Utile/ •
saffiekint quantity of coal duet in it, so that the article Wit
be eassidered as coal within the inessning of the eat of
peritoneal ender which the duty was levied. The Nan
sew said that they thought that the patent fuel coal* net
be eneldend es coal within the meaning of the on of par-
tisans% and judgment mast therefore be for the ishaimat.
—Judgment for the &feudist.
WITNIRILL V. JUNIS.—ROTION AGADNIT Ai ATTORNZT
FOR NIOLIOT.
This was an action brought by the ROT. Mr. Charles
Wetherell, rester of Byilad, in Northaaptoushire,
. .