The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE (THIS DAY),

ROLLS COURT.
SAYE V. SMITH.--JUDGMENT.

In this case, which came before the Court upon mo-
tion at the last seal,

The Master of the Rolls, on taking his seat this morn-
ing, stated that since the case was before him be bad
carefully read the papers, and was of opinion that he
ought to make no order upon the motion.
It appeared that the plaintiff while a minor had got
considerably into debt, and had given securities the
day after be came of age to the extent of upwards of
12,0001. The bill was filed to impeach those securities,
on the ground that the plaintiff was not liable to pay
them ; and, also, for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from proceeding with an action-at-law to recover
the amount of the bills given by the plaintiff. An in-
junction was obtained, exparte, for that purpose, and a
motion was made at the last seal to dissolve that in-
junction, on which motion his honour now gave judg-
ment, declining to make any order upon it, except that
the costs should be costs in the cause.
His Honour then ptoceeded to hear motions.

All the other Equity Courts heard motions, it being a
seal day, but nothing of the slightest interest occurred
in them during the morning.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
. CLAYTON V. FENWICK.

Mr. Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Addison were fur the plain-
tiff ; and Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Unthank for the
defendant.

This was an action for trespass for removing certain
turnpike gates placed on the road from Newcastle-on-.
Tyne to North Shields, and came before their lordships
for their opinion with reference to the various local and
general acts bearing on the question. The plaintiff was
clerk to the trustees for putting into effect an act for
repairing these roads passed in 1831, and the defendant
was the surveyor to the Corporation of the borough of
Tynemouth, enforcing the public
Health Act of 1848.
On the 7th January, 1852, the Council had occasion to
use the North Shields road with carts and horses, and
pass over the sites of former turnpike gates, on which
the plaintiff caused bars to be put up, and refused to
let the horses and carts pass without payment of toll.
The defendant then removed the bars and passed over
the roads, which was the trespass complained of.
The roads and branches passed within the borough of
Newcastle-on-Tyne,Tynemouth, Shields, and other town-
ships. The question for their lordships' opinion was,
whether the trustees for putting into execution the Ist
and 2d of Wm. IV., chap. 72, were entitled to collect
tolls within the borough of Tynemouth, and which de-
pended on the point whether the local Board of Health
were authorised, in a provisional order they made in
1851, to direct the Towns Municipal Act to be incorpo-
rated with the Local or Improvement Act, so as to make
it of force within the borough of Tynemouth. The
tolls were mortgaged in a heavy amount, and assuming
they were put up on the road within the borough in a
legal manner, the tolls collected there formed a very
material, if not principal, part of the fund from which
the parties who have advanced the money were to look
for repayment, and that these tolls were mortgaged
prior to the passing of the General Board of Health
Act, and the attempt to incorporate the 50th sec-
tion of the Towns Municipal Act, so as to make it a
binding enactment within the borough of Tynemoutb.
The North Shields Local Act reserved the right of the
mortgagees. The grand question was, whether if the
50th section of the Towns Municipal Act did not apply,
and the trustees of the roads may, in certain places,
erect toll bars, collect tolls, and repair the roads, whe-
ther they were justified in doing so at the particular
places they had erected them.
Lord Campbell, at the commencement of the case,
observed that the plans provided for the guidance of the
Court in the case, by the plaintiff, were so complicated
as to rather mystify than elucidate the case, extending
over as much paper as would cover the area of the
Court, and directed they should not be allowed in the
cost?, ; and

Mr. Justice Erie remarked that the interlacing of so
many acts of Parliament, and sections of the acts, made
this a very complicated case.
The arguments had not concluded when we went to
press.