The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--Jan. 18.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
JORTIN V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Their lordships delivered their judgments upon this
appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, pro-
nounced in January, 1854 ; the argument upon the ap-
peal having been heard early in December last, when
Mr. Roundel' Palmer, Mr. J. Baily, Q.C., and Mr. C.
Hall appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and the Solici-
tor-General, Mr. Wigram, Q.C., and Mn W. Pall for the
defendants.
The plaintiff was the holder of mortgage bonds upon
the harbour, land, and buildings, as well as upon the
rates and dues, which under the Act 57 Geo. 111., c.
34, were the property of the Folkestone Harbour Com-
' pang. After the bonds had been given by the company
to the various persons from whom the plaintiff derived
title, the property comprised in such mortgages was
mortgaged by the company to the Exchequer Loan
Commissioners for an advance of money ; and upon the
occasion of such mortgage to the commissioners the
prior mortgagees under whom the plaintiff claimed, by
a memorandum of even date with the mortgage, con-
ceded to the commissioners a qualified priority as
of the rates and duties only, without mentioning the
harbour, land, and buildings. The principal and inte-
rest upon their mortgage being in arrears, the commis-
sioners, under the powers given to them by the acts of
Parliament authorising them to lend money on mortgage,
took possession of the whole property of the Harbour
Company, including the buildings and harbour, and sold
the same to the defendants, the South-Eastern Railway
Company. The questions upon the hearing before the
Vice-Chancellor, and upon the appeal were—first, whe-
ther the commissioners, by their acts of Parliament,
were empowered to give and had given to the plaintiffs
a title discharged from the prior mortgages of the plain-
tiff, as it affected the harbour, land, and buildings, as to
which there had been no concession of priority to the
the commissioners, or whether the defendants' title was
subject to such prior mortgage ; and secondly, whether
the whole or any part of the principal and interest in
respect of the plaintiff's mortgage was barred by the
statute of limitations. The Vice-Chancellor's decision
in favour of the plaintiff on both questions was affirmed
by their lordships in theirjudgment upon the appeal.
THE MANCHESTER, SHBVTIRLD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE RAIL-
WAY COMPANY V. THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH FOR
THE DISTRICT OP WORKSOP.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. G. W. Collins moved for an in-
junction to restrain the defendants from diverting certain
streams of water from flowing, as they had previously
flowed, into the Chesterfield and Gainsborough canal,
and from using the water of such streams for the pur-
pose of cleansing the sewers made ley the defendants,
and then from discharging the same water in a polluted
state into the said canal. The canal in question was
originally made under the provisions of an act passed
in the third year of George 111., for making acanal from
Chesterfield through or near Worksop, to join the River
Trent at Stock with, and to supply the said canal, whilst
the same should be making, and when made, with water
out of such springs as should be found in making
such canal, and out of such brooks, streams, and
watercourses as were, or should be found within the
dietauce of one thousand yards from any part of the
said intended canal, and from certain other sources men-
tioned in the act, with powers to make reservoirs, side-
cuts, and drains, on adjoining lands, for the purpose
of supplying the water to the canal. By several acts of
Parliament the Canal Company became amalgamated
with the Railway Company under the title of the
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway
Company, and by the 263 d section of 12 and 13
Victoria, it was amongst other things provided that the
company thereby incorporated should at all times thereafter
maintain the canal and works thereto belonging in working
order, and preserve the supplies of water to the same, en
that the said canal should be at all times kept open and
navigable for the use of all persons desirous of using the
same. A local board of health having been established for
the district of Worksop under the provisions of 11 and 12
Victoria c. 63, and 15 and 16 Victoria, c. 42, and a
considerable population beginning to grow up in
the district, that board had constructed a sewer for
the purpose, as alleged by the bill, of draining
the houses already built, as well as any that might be
built in the same locality. And by this drain it was
alleged that the water which used to flow into the canal
would be diverted and used for the purpose of cleansing
the sewer and cess-pools, and would then be emptied
into the canal in a filthy and polluted state, carrying
with it the refuse from the houses, pigsties, and stable ;
and that the proper course for the Board of Health to
have taken would have been to make their drain in such
a way that it might be carried under the canal, and so
into a stream on the other side.
Mr. James, Mr. Selwyn, and gr. Forster appeared
for the defendants, and after some discussion offered to
give an undertaking to do nothing more until the right
had been tried at law.
Mr. Rolt suggested that the question should be set-
tled by a common law judge sitting with the Vice-Chan-
cellor.
The Vice. Chancellor, however, said he thought
there was a question which ought to go to a jury, and
therefore he should direct that the defendants under-
taking not to open or permit to be opened any side
sewers, or other sewers into the main sewer which had
been constructed, the motion should stand over, with
liberty to the plaintiffs to bring such action as they might
be advised, and with liberty to either side to apply.
WOODARD T. THIS EASTERN COUNTIES AND THE LONDON
AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANIES.

This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from constructing their line of railway from
Tilbury to Southend, over the plaintiff's land, referred to
in certain notices which had been served by the com-
pany in December, 1852, or interfering with Mrs.
Woodard's possession until compensation had been made.
The plaintiff's lands consisted of two leasehold farms at
Hadleigh, in Essex. The company, in 1852, had served
the usual notices of their intention to purchase, upon
the deceased lessee, of whom the plaintiff was adminis-
tratrix. In the course of last year they applied to the
plaintiff's professional adviser for• the purpose of obtain-
ing possession of the land. Compensation for the crops,
and for interference, was required as a condition of the
assent to this request. It turned out that the company
did not take possession, nor pay for the crops. The
plaintiff's solicitor then communicated with the Com-
pany, stating that it was intended to sow the land,
and demanding compensation by reason of the rail-
way crossing the Kersey Marsh Farm. In October a
sum for compensation was agreed upon by the solicitors
or agents, and it was arranged that accommodation
works should be erected by the defendants. These
agreements did not appear to have been sent to, or exe-
cuted by the parties, and, during the last month the de-
fendants took the land without paying any compensa-
tion or giving notice, as was alleged, or making the de-
posit required by the Lands Clauses Act.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Nalder were for the plaintiff.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Greene were for the companies, and
stated that they had reason to believe the plaintiff
acquiesced in the entry, and they were quite prepared
to pay a reasonable amount of compensation, and if it
was deemed insufficient, the existing statutes afforded a
remedy without the extraordinary aid of the Court by
lin unction.
His Honour thought the case was not of a very
serious character. The plaintiff was justified in apply-
ing to the Court under all the circumstances, and he
must, therefore, grant the injunction as prayed, until
further order, as the entry was illegal.