The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-21 00:00:00

Lr:VATIC 1-PETITION3.

Lord l'ottsniouth
Lord (:adogan
Hatsell
West
Wilmahnrst
NCW ‘`ETITIONS,
Willett
Bawling
Walter
Wortley
IVltarton
Carpenter
Norsway
%Vorsley, two peti-
tions
Burroughs
Southby
Badow, two peti-
tions

Pearce
Tay;or

cAnsn PETITIONS BEFORE THE VICE-CHAVCELLOII;
, THIS DAY.
REMAINING MOTIONS.
Exparte Bye re Salter, bankrupt Bowes v Strathmore
petition, per order In re Beckett
Casamajor v :Mode, to be spoke Spede v Smith •
to • Burke v Jones
Attorney-tlencral v Mayor of May v Phillips
Rochester,. Cropley v Cropky
In re Tadeas.er School Binnington v banningtn-.44
Deacon v Deacon petiuns
Harrington • Oreg,on Morsen v Dyett
blouson v Essex Richards , Chamber.
Lord St..lohn v Heron Waiter v 1 ork
Reeves v Brymer Marckusson.• Wolff
In re Johnstone's Charity Delegall v Brewer
M`Dermot v Katy La Ferriere v Bulmer
Powell v Pope Scott v Wheaton
Ridley v Osborne Wilson v Mount ,
Mortlock v Waddilove Brandon v Brandon
In re Committee for Improving Wool v Batchelor
IVestminster-2 peti.ione Price v Price
Hill v Howley In re I.ord Somerville
Blackburn v Blackburn De Lisle v Fen wick
Ready v Cawthome Qoodall v Newbury
Powell v Stables lo re Compere
Attorney-Generals Mayor of Woodltall v Woodhull
Rochester

COURT OF K 1

There will he no slitting in 1
nesday next. There will be nook!

-
NO'S BENCIt.
liddleacx thin day t nor on Wed:
ing in London on Thursday next:

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE.CHAATLLOR'S COURT, raiD.--, 20.

DUDLEY :•• untrnv.
Th:s cage occupied a considerable part el yesterday and was re..
earned tn-day.
Mr. HART etatcd that the bill wan filed for the purpose of pre:.
venting the completion of a road, which was intended to connect a
mine belonging to the defend:xt with the Stourbridge canal. This
purpotte way to be efrecteti by tutting a way through a Seld, the
property of the plaintiff, situate tn. the vicinity of the canal. TM
Statute 16, George HI. authorised the appointment of certain Com.:
nilesioners, with power to make a road iunning.through any •,land
lying between or nearer to the canal then the mine." The Commis-

itonern thus coestituted exercised their authority by awarding to the
defendant liberty to pass a road lengthwise through the cenue of the
plaintiff's ground.. The plaintiff complained that Stith cendaet wee
not in accordance with the powers vested in the Commissioners, for,
the words of the Act required that such road should be " necessary
and expedient ;" but these terms were perverted when applied to
the road in qUestion. It would undoubtedly be exceedingly con-
venient for the defendant to possess such a facility of communica-
tion with the wharfs on the banks of the canal ; but this conveni-
ence did not fall within the provisions of the statute, because dm
wharfs were built in consevence of the opportunity of access which
the road would afford. The plaintiff thus considered that the
meaning of the act had been falsified ; all the " expediency and
necessity" of the road did not comprise the wharfs, but referred ex-
clusively to the canal. The Learned Counsel hope/f that the
judgment of the Court would coincide with the opinion of the
plaintiff, and that the prayer of his !11l would be granted.
11.1r..SunDEY, for the defendant, opposed the application for its
Injunction, on the ground that the Commissioners had not exceeded
their authority, and that his client, who had already entered into a
contract for the making of the road, would be subject to great
hardship, if he should be compelled by the injunction to discon-
tinue operations until the next Quarter Sessions. The worlunen
would alas be debarred fro n employment.
„Tkhe. arrng.ttulaoaigavriendtoil-dislaym,damtnt.
said, that the complaint of the plaintiff affected the umlue tumble
of a power intru?ted to the Commissioners by Act of Parliament,
for the construction of a road to communicate with the Stourbridge
canal. The plaintiff considered that they had gone beyond their
jurisdiction, by stretching the limits of „expediency and *tensity"
contemplated by the Statute to objects not meant to be included in
its provisions. Ile contended that there were two tests Whereby to
construe the Act of Parliament. One rule was that the road should
be in direct and not circuitous communication with the cartel. The
other criterion was the consideration of expense, As less cost
would be incurred in leaking a road in such direct line. Ily these
two boundaries the plaintiff deemed the Commiasioners under the
Act to be c .nrined in their views of " expediency and neeessity, "
and by these precincts they were suietly precluded from dimming
the line of road to accommodate the defendant with an opportunity.
of making convenient wharfs. The question between the parties
therefore rests on the construction of rite Statute. In his answer the
defendant alleges that the award of the 'ornmissionent was cramped-
We with the provisions of the Statute, and that even tinder a supposi-
tion that the Commissioners had acted erroneously in thisrespect, still
the plaintiff had not adopted the remedy prescribed by the statute,
which was an appeal to the Quarter Sessions against the Award of the
Commissioners. The plaintiff'had, indeed, in last December, re-
sorted to the Quarter Sessions for redress, and his Honour was of
opinion that such appeal should be prosecuted, a coming within
the scope of the Quarter Sessions. If the appeal were dismissed,
and the award thereby confirmed, still the plaintiff *mild not be
in a worse situation then he is at present. In such cage he might
assert that the Commissioners were compelled to judge of " the
expediency and necessity" of the road, by the considerations of
cheapness and of direct coiwnunication with the canal, and that they
were not entitled to take any collateral benefits into contemplation.
The plaintiff; therefore, should have pursued his course at the
Quarter Sessions. Hut here the defendant argues that the grant of
an injunction is tint of the sphere of a Court of Equity; for the ge-
neral rule is. that an • injunction shall issue, not to determine
questions of sight, but to prevent injury to any of the patties while
that question is depending. The point was, how far this sort
rule should be allowed to bear on the present case. The thort fn.
tennis between the commencement of the work, the appeal to the
Quarter Sessions, and the present bill, proved that the plaintiff was
not remiss, and delay, which was a foundation of the general tale,
could not in this instance check the interposition of the Court. By
granting the injunction the defendant would be debarred, only for
a short period, front the exercise of a valuable yet dubious prtei-•
lege ; but if the defendant should he allowed to proceed with the
work in the interim, the plaintiff might suffer grievous injury.
The defendant was permitted by the award of the Commissioners
to make a road 50 yards wide, extending to • great length, and
dissecting the plaintiff's land into unconnected portions. The nes'
cessity for embankments caused the width of the road to be so con-
siderable, and the process of preparing the place might be mane-
rive of much detriment to the quality of the soil. The Court was
anxious to watch over the exercise of the defendant's privilege, and
to prevent abuse. As there was cause for some apprehension in
this respect his Honour would prevent its contingency. He would
therefore direct that the, plaintiff should prosecute the appeal at the
Quarter Sessions, and in the meat' time the defendant should be
restricted in the continuance of the works until the decision of the
Quitter Sessions was ascertaioeth
The injunction was granted.
CRESWELL V. VIARRIS.
An order was made on the 24th Jtme, 1817, directing the plain-
tiff' to amend his bill within " one month," and in default to be
dismissed with costs. According to the allegation of the defend-
ant, the usual search was made on the 24th of July following, and
the bill was not found to be amended as the Court ordered. Under
an impression that the bill hest not been amended, the defendant
proceeded to tax the costs in last December, Tits plaiotiff pow
alleged that he bad actually amended the bill on the 24th of July
1817, and thereby performed the order of the Court. Whethet
this was the fact was to be determined by the period of time com-
prised in " a mooch" under such circumstances, whether it should
be considered a lunar or calendar one.
The Vior.-CttarrcELLOß said the phrase "one month" muse
be construed as "one lunar moth." Hit Honour, however, would
not have insisted on construing it thus strictly, if an intention to
proceed with the amended bill was discoverable. This not being
the case, he disclaimed the bill Stith costs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WXSTMINSTtI, JAN. 20!

Sittings bcfbre Mr. Justice BAIA'. a Special Jury.
THE XIXO v. REVIETT, ESQ.
This was ati indictment, at the prosecution of llaniel Whittle
Harvey, against the defendant, bag hien with losing com-
mitted gross, wilful, and corrupt petTurt, in &certain affidavit made.
by him before one of the Masters in (Away. ip the wwwl2 OC
suit which was Instituted by him against the Prweeefithr• Thu Sr!.
tendant pleaded not guihy, and thereupon issue was joined.
Mr. Scarlett. Me. Curwood. cud Mr. Brougham werewere
for the prosecution. and the Attorney-General; G and
Mr. Thessiger for the detention.
KT. SC•RLETT, in siting the Me to 111H11 Jury, detailed the
mhos transactions that had taken place llikween Marvel suit

and