The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-12 00:00:00

GA TV INTELLIGENCE.--Jan. 11.

In this case there bad been a disputed election to the
office of coroner for the district of Hemel-Hempstead ;
the rights of certain of the freeholders to vote being
questioned, and two gentlemen claimed to have been
elected. The matter came before this court on an ex
parte application, and the sheriff was ordered to make
a retarn.

Mr. Surrage now appeared for one of the parties,
and stated that a, return had been made, but it was
not of such a nature as to decide which of the claim-
ants was elected to the office, and he asked leave to
present a petition, which would have the effect of bring-
l-rig all the parties before the court, and decide the ques-
ion as to the rights of the different freeholders to
votes.
Leave was given, and the petition ordered to stand in
the paper for Thursday next.
THORNHILL V. THORYHILL.
In this case it will be recollected that Mr. G. A. Ha-
milton Chichester, who had been committed to prison for
contempt of court in attempting to induce Miss Clara
Thornhill, a ward in Chancery, to marry him, was dis-
charged on certain conditions, one of which was the
payment of the taxed costs.
Mr. Bailey and Mr. Renshaw, for the young lady's
guardians, now applied to the court to review the mas-
ter's taxation, lie having disallowed several items of costs
as not being covered by the order of the court. Among
others were the costs of the affidavits on which an in-
junction had been obtained in the first instance restrain-
ing Mr. Chichester from attempting to marry or have any
communication with Miss Thornhill. This having oc-
curred previous to the commitment of Mr. Chichester
for contempt, the Master disallowed the costs, on the
ground that the order applied only to the costs of the
commitment, and did not include those connected with
the injunction, whiob, it was now contended, was in fact
an integral part of the whole proceedings to which the
final order of the court was directed.
Mr. Cairns and Mr. Rowcliffe supported the decision
of the Master, urging that the proceedings in the in-
junction were distinct from those which resulted in the
commitment.
The Lord Chancellor said that the Master had mis-
taken his duty in disallowing the costs. It was a fal-
lacy to suppose that the affidavits which were used in
moving for the injunction were not connected with the
proceeding for obtaining the commitment, for they
were in fact used kr and were applicable to the
whole proceedings, therefore the taxation must be
reviewed.
Some other items were mentioned as having been dis-
allowed, with regard to which his lordship thought
the Master was right,and his decision would there-
fore stand.
The court then rose.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
This being the first day of Hilary Term, the court sat
at Westminster, about two o'clock.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BRIGC4S.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from proceeding with a building which he
was erecting under the following circumstances :—The
Birmingham and Oxford Railway, where it passes
through the town of Birmingham,- in part arched-
over, and the company had put np for sale by auc-
tion a portion of the surface where the line was
thus arched ever. The defendant became the pur-
chaser ; the conditions of sale provided that no build-
ing should be erected on the arch unless and until
the plans for such building had been approved by the
engineer of the company. Accordingly the defendant
submitted to Mr. Hewitt, the resident engineer, the
plans of his proposed building ; these were returned to
him approved, and he had proceeded to a great extent
before the conveyance was executed. The conveyance
contained a covenant by the defendant not to proceed
with any new building until the plans of such building
were approved by the engineers of the company, but the
conveyance had no reference to the buildings then erect-
incr. Shortly after the execution of the conveyance Mr.
Erimnell became alarmed at the building which was
going on, and considered that it might endanger the
safety of the arched covering of the railway ; and con-
sequence he applied to the resident solicitor of the com-
pany to interfere. The latter applied to the defendant,
who refused to stay his proceedings. The solicitor then
endeavoured to induce the magistrates to interfere,
who at first refused, but ultimately an arrangement was
made under their advice, by which Mr. Briggs was to
be allowed to proceed with one man only, so as to keep
up his right. The Mayor of Birmingham then applied to
the Board of Trade to send down an officer to inspect
the works. This officer reported that there was no sign
of any immediate risk, but that the arch must be
strengthened before any greater weight was put upon
it. Terms had been proposed to the defendant by the
company, and the defendant had offered to resell the
land to the company at the price given for it with com-
pensation amounting in the whole to 8,0001., with an
indemnity against any claims which might be brought
against him by the tenants to whom he had leased the
prenaisee, or he had offered to accept compensation for
his lose, and that the company should do all that was ne-
cessary to enable him to complete his building. These
terms were rejected, others were offered by the company,
and in the end the present information was filed at
the relation of the company, and an injunction moved
for to restrain the defendant from proceeding with the
building. The defendant had given an undertaking in
the terms of the notice of motion ; and then another in-
formation was filed, as was contended, really by the de,
fendant, and a motion was made to restrain the company
from running their trains over the line until the arch-
way was made safe ; the object, as was alleged, being,
that the stopping of the trains would be so serious an
evil to the company, that they would be glad to accede
to the defendant s terms of purchasing the land.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. G. L. Russell appeared for the com-
pany; Mr. James and Mr. Speed for the defendantßriggs.
But after much discussion terms were arranged, and it
was ordered by consent that until the hearing of the
cause or further order, the defendant should not pro-
ceed with his building without the consent of Mr. Brun-
nell, that the company should be at liberty to enter upon
the defendant's land for the purpose of doing such works
as might be necessary to strengthen the foundation, so
as to enable the defendant to complete the building ac-
cording to the original plan ; the company submitting
to be bound by any order the court might make at the
hearing as to the compensation to which the defendant
might be entitled for any damage or loss occasioned by
the proceedings of the company, with liberty to all par-
ties to apply, and the order to be without prejudice to
any question in the cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
This being the first day of Hilary Term, Lord
Campbell, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Wight-
man, and Mr. Justice Crompton, having partaken
of breakfast at the Lord Chancellor's, came down
in procession with the other learned judges to West-
minster Hall, and took their seats on the bench at
two o'clock.
THE QUEEN (Ex PARTE THE JUSTICES OF MAIDENHEAD) v.
PEARCE AND OTHERS.—ALLEGED LIBEL.
Mr. Whately moved for a rule, calling on the de-
fendants, three of the town councillors of the borough of
Maidenhead, to show cause why a criminal inform..
tion should not be filed against them for a libel, im-
puting that three magistrates of the borough had been
guilty of improper conduct as magistrates. It appeared
that a gentleman named Richard Lovegrove, being in
arrear as to certain payments alleged to be due to the
Beard of Health, was summoned before the ma-
gistrates on the 24th of October, 1854, when both par-
ties were represented by counsel. The magistrates,
after a full hearing, made an order of payment against
Mr. Lovegrove, who paid the sum due with costs. They,
however, refused to allow the fees of the counsel of the
Local Board of Health, amounting to from 251. to 351.,
as they were informed by their clerk that it was not
the practice to do so. On the 7th December, the three
gentlemen against whom he moved issued a hand-bill, of
which the magistrates complained as libellous, in the
form of an address to the burgesses of Maidenhead.
The learned counsel then read the alleged libel, which
stated that the magistrates had refused to allow the coun-
eel's fees, "being overawed
clerk, or too pu by the impetuosity of their
sillanimous to face the frown of Mr.
Lovegrove."
Lord Campbell asked if the learned counsel had read
the whole of the libel !
Mr. Whately replied in the affirmative.
vuLteedr.d Campbell—Then I don't find any corruption im-
Mr. 'Whately—Th laskestrates were charged with
failing to do their doh°
Lord Campbell— '.`ucreecreertee of intimidation.
courts of law in this noun arlopezt• -" the judges of the
benefitiolto comment, and
are commented on, without '
for anything I know to theof the law, and
don't see why the magistrates. of M.aidtehnehePtladbt towbee
exempted from that to which the judges of the laud are
liable. (Laughter.)
Mr. Whately—You see, my lord, it is impute
the magistrates had not done their duty, as that
overawed by the impetuosity of their clerk, or we were
pusillanimous to face the frown of Mr. Lovegrove. °
Lord Campbell—No doubt these magistrates are
highly honourable men, but I think they are rather
thin skinned. We most anxiously protect magistrates
in the discharge of their duty, and if any specific
offence had been charged we most certainly should have
called on the party preferring the charge either to re-
tract or substantiate it. There is not one member of
this court who thinks that this is a caw in which we
should interfere. These magistrates may very well trust
to their character without putting the criminal law into
cff,;ct.
Mr. Whateley was sure that this expression of hie
lordship would be highly satisfactory to the gentlemen
for whom he appeared,
Ind who bad only taken this
course for the purpose of showing that they had not
failed in their duty.
The other learned judges having concurred,
The application was refused,

The suspension has been announced
yen, Brothers, an old and well-known firm in
of Me
the ssrs. Keste-
ven, Brothers, Their liabilities amount to 40,0001., and their
assets are estimated to yield only 7s. in the pound:
A little boy named Ryran
DUKeon residing with his
parents at Bonagher, fell into a boiler' of hot
Sunday last, and was scalded to death. .At Thorns!. tours, on Monday, a child, four years of age, was am'
water on
dentally burnt to death during the absence of its
parents.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
His Lordship, accompanied by the three Vice-Chan-
(sellers, took his seat in court shortly before 2 o'clock.
Mr. Bagshawe, haring been recently
her Majesty's counsel, W invited to take his c 1")
acv
within the bar. freAti. one of
was
RE THE CORONER OF FIEMECL-HglirgTEAD.

GUILDHALL.—Mr. IL F. Wood applied to Al-
derman Carter, on behalf of a poor woman of the name
of Freakes,
Mr. Wood stated that about a month ago the woman's
husband came up from Staffordshire, and was obliged
to go into St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where he died
on Saturday week last. As soon as the widow was ap-
prised of the fact, she wrote up to request that they
would not bury the body until she had seen it, and im-
mediately started for London, but having to come by
canal she was three days and three nights performing
the journey of 200 miles. She proceeded to the hospital
on her arrival, and applied to see the body of her hus-
band, but her request was peremptorily refused. Why,
he could not say, but he had sent his clerk down to the
hospital, cautioning them not to bury the body until
the complainant had seen it. The messenger of this
court had presented himself in his uniform, to support
the poor woman's request, and it was still refused. The
authorities had informed the widow that the body would
be buried to-morrow (this day).
Alderman Carter asked if the body was screwed down.
Groves, the messenger, said the authorities refused to
give him any information on that point, alleging that
it was against the rules of the hospital.
Alderman Carter said it appeared very extraordi-
nary, and if no reason was assigned for the objection
complained of he would give the poor woman all the
assistance in his power.
In a short time Mr. Wood's clerk returned with the
information that the body of the deceased was dissected,
consent having been obtained of one Richard Coburg,
who represented himself as a relative.
Alderman Carter asked applicant if she knew the man
Coburg ?
The widow said she knew no one of that name.
Alderman Carter said ho understood that a pose mor-
'elft examination had been held on the body, which, being
now in a state of decomposition, if she were allowed to
view it, would only tend to barrow her feelings and dis-
pel all the pleasing reminiscences of her last parting
from her husband. He therefore advised her to refrain
from pressing her request.
The widow said she would be satisfied if her brother
was allowed to view the body.
Alderman Carter thought that a better arrangement,
and very kindly gave her brother a letter to the trea-
surer in favour of that object.
Alderman Carter requested the press would acknow
ledge the receipt of 101, from the Leathersellers' Cum.
pany for the poor box.

SOUTHWARK.—Mr. Charles Reginald Gibson, a
solicitor at Dartford, and clerk to the magistrates at that
place, was summoned before Mr. A'Beckett for unlaw-
fully obstructing James Lineham, an officer of the South
Eastern Railway, while in the execution of his duty.
Mr. Church appeared for the railway company, and
the defendant was accompanied by a number of gentle.
men residing at Dartford and other places.
The complainant, on being sworn, stated that he
was a porter in the employ of the South Eastern Rail-
way Company, and at eight o'clock on Wednesday
evening, the 3d instant, he was placed at a barrier
close to a train that was about to start. The chick had
struck and the signal had been given to him by a man
at the booking office when witness closed the gate.
The outer door had also been closed at the North
Kent entrance where he was placed. The defendant
came in by another door, and asked whether the
train was gone. He told him "No ; but the signal
had been given." .After that defendant asked him to
open the gate and let him through. He refused to do
so, as his orders were otherwise. The defendant then
said, " Oh ! nonsense, I have got my ticket ; let me go."
Witness told him that he could not go as the signal had
been given. The defendant then went to the right of
him and jumped over the iron railing which was placed
as a barrier. Witness went up to him and laid hold of
him to bring him back outside the barrier until the
train had started, when defendant struck him with his
umbrella on his head and face. Witness used no more
than necessary force to bring him back, and while doing
his duty he mado two desperate charges at him with
his umbrella. It was his duty to prevent passengers
passing the barrier after the clock had struck and the
signal given, and until the train had started,
George Tilley, also in the company's service, and
Mr. John Weatherhead, station-house master, gave evi-
dence confirmatory of the previous witness's statement,
and said that defendant had no right to enter at the door
by which he got admission.
Mr. Gibson, in defence, positively denied striking the
officer. It was highly important to him that he should
have proceeded by that train, as the next did not leave
until two hours afterwards. Ho had his return ticket,
giving him authority to travel by the company's train,
and he ought to have been allowed to proceed on his
way, as the train had not started. The company had
nothing
in their bye-laws to withhold him, and the
seonueeral act gave them no power to act as they had
quently used
be Way that he entered the station was fro
The complainant unnecessary
renient to the a.
return-ticket holders, and it was con-
a great deal of "'ay company, as it saved time and
it away it might have touted manner, and took his u him by the throat in a ruffianly
trouble to the servants.
crieilla from him. In wresting
0 enter the train before'
nainahanlet
solemnly denied wilfullyuas,eduilti.ini slightly, but he must
Into the station the clock haad not hlOl.
thatand hhaedahnooutlduhleavceombevel When he got
had no right to do, ltn, which he
After considerable argument on each side,
Mr. A'Beekett said that defendant wa c
obstructing the officer in the execution ofs hish data vl4l,
officer's duty was to prevent passengers paseiy. 'ltobarrier. He had not done so, for defendant
haaingastslel
the barrier before ho was interfered with.
The question
W 2.3, whether the officer then took the proper course.
He thought not. The alleged offence was not proved
against the defendant, and the summons must be dis-
missed.

As a train of the Left Bank Versailles Railway was on
Wednesday coming to Paris, one of the guards, a man
named Albert, imprudently stood up as it approached
the bridge of Vergen. The consequence was that the
man's skull striking against the bridge was broken in,
and he fell dead. Several accidents of the same kind have
occurred at the game bridge,--awignani.