Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-17 00:00:00

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

A special meeting of the council was held yesterday ;
Christopher Bushell, Esq., 'Vice-president, in the chair.
Mr. Mae brought forward a motion, of which he had
given notice, relative to the discharging and loading of
vessels, and the general working of the docks, which was
referred to the committee on dock arrangements.
On the motion of Mr, Rawlins, it was referred t 3 the
following committee, to consider what steps, if any, can bo
taken to increase the number of members and the efficiency
of the chamber, Committee nominated : Messrs. Cooke,
Corbally, Rawlins, Damon, and Macfie.
It was also resolved that a committee be appointed to
consider the French plans of obtaining colonial labourers
from Africa, and to confer with the African Association
thereon. Committee : Messrs. Cooke, Macfie, Harrison,
Parker, and Rawlins.
The Secretary was instructed to apply to the Dock Com-
mittee, for copes of their sub-committee's report and
digest of evidence on the subject of dock fines, and the
appointment of traffic managers for the docks.
The questiOn of inequality of rates of carriage charged
by railway companies, was b►ought before the council, and
the following report of a trial, ccnfi, ming the view the
chamber as taken on the subject, was ordered to be
suppled with the account of the proceedings of the day :
BAXENDAIE V. THE NORTII DEVON RAILWAY COMPANY.-

APPLICATION FJE AN INJUNCTION

In this case a rule bad bean olyained, calling upon the
North Devon Railway Company to show cause why a writ
of injunction should not issue, enjoining them to charge
the complainant the same rate of carriage far goods from
Manchester to Barnstaple which they charged to other
persons. To-day cause was shown against the rule being
made absolute.

Mr. Lush, Q C., and Mr. Milward appeared to show
cause, and Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Pollock to
support the rule.
In showing cause it was stated that the complainant
carried on business under the well-known name of Pickford
and Co., and the complaint was that they had to pay for
the carriage of Manchester pecks from Manchester to
Barnstaple at the rate of 12s. 61, a ton, whilst the
general public were charged only £2 10. The ground of
complaint appeared in a circular letter issued by the
manager of the North Devon line, in which he said, " I
have the pleasure to inform you that I have entered into
an arrangement with the Bristol and Exeter Company,
by which Manchester packs will be charged at a through
rate of 50s, a ton, to include collection and delivery.
These rates can only be assured to consignees
by ordering their packs by Carver and C 1., from
Manchester, to the care of Wall, at Bristol." The goods
went along the London and North Western, the Midland,
the Bristol and Exeter, and the North Devon lines, and
the supposed cause of complaint arose between Bristol
and Barnstaple. It was contended that the application
should have been made agsiust the Bristol and Exeter
Company. Beyond this, it was said that nobody was to
blame at all ; that the arrangement was for the benefit of
the public; and that Messrs. Pickford might, if they liked,
send their goods for 503. a ton, the only condition being
that they should send in the prescribed way.
The Chief Justice said that the effect of it was, that if
the good; were sent by particular carriers, Messrs. Carver
and Co., they would go cheaper than if sent by any other
carrier.

Mr. Milward suggested that if Ole goods were sent
through Messrs. Carver and Co., they would go in a bulk,
and it would be more convenient for the railway company
As regarded the North Devon line, the arrangement was in
a ntanner forced on them ; for, if they did not agree to it,
they would lose the traffic altogether, as the probability
was that the goods would b 3 carried between Bristol and
Barnstaple by ste.m-boat
Mr. Sergeant Bales submitted that the defendants were
clearly common carriers, and, therefore, ought not to give
advantage to one carrier over another ; that they, having
charged two rates, had infring3d the provisions of the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, and should be restrained
from so doing.
Mr. Justice Crowder asked how it appeared that the
North Devon Company made an excess of charge as
against the complainants ?
Mr Sergeant Byles said there was an excess of charge
amounting to 2s. GI between Bristol and Barnstaple, and
fur that part of that distance the North Devon carried.
Mr. Pollock all° rose to address the court.

The Chief Justice inquired if he wznid be content with
his rule being absolute in the limited form of applying to
the traffic on the North Devon only ?
Mr. Pollock : Yes, because if the system ware continued,
they could apply against the other companies.
The Chief Justice.—lt might be involved in considerable
doubt whether the rule might be granted in the larger
form; they wore net at all clear about it. It was, however,
unnecessary to pronounce any opinion upon that, as it
would answer the purpose to have the rule in the modified
form. The rule would th--refore be absolute for an injunc-
tion as regarded the traffic on the North Devon only.
Rule absolute accordingly.

COURT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CROWN

CLSES RESERVED.—Nov. 14.

COITS.-31r. Brent applied to the Court, to know who
was the proper persnn to tax the costs of the proceed-
ings in this court on the part of the prosecution. A
case was tried at Liverpool, and points had beau reserved
for the opinion of this Court Application was after-
war's made to the taxing officers of the criminal court
at the Liverpool Assizes, but those officers had declined
to do so. It was important that there should be some
direction upon the subject, as parties did not know to
whom to apply. The Lord Chief Justice said the Court
were of opinion that they bad no power to order tho pay-
ment of costs. The officer of the court before whom a
prisoner was tried was the proper person to tax the costs,
but the Judaes thought it would be more convenient that
the officer of this court should ascertain the costs, and
give a certificate of his opinion, to be produced to the
officer of this court ; and although that would not be obli-
gatory upon the officer below, yet the Judges had no doubt
he would adopt it ; but they would make a rule, which they
had the power to do, that such a course should be adopted
in future.