The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1855,

!".4 I ARE MARKETS

LINES LEASED AT FIXED RENTALS.

LAW INTELLIGENCE (THIS DAY).

THIS DAY.)

RAMWAYII.

Leastug
Compans

1061112 Prteet
yesterday.

Onstress
this day.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart.)

RAILWAYS.

WINTOSH V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Cilosiiag Prices
yesterday.

The arguments in this important case were resumed
this morning. On the conclusion of those on the part of
the defendants, the Great Western Railway Company,
Sir F. Kelly rose to reply, but was interrupted by

22 - 23

4i - 4i

His Honour, who stated that he was very anxious,
considering the importance of the case, and the magni-
tude of the sum at stake, to state what his impression
were upon the point involved. The great difficulty his
Honour felt, indeed almost the only one was upon the
subject of the jurisdiction of the Court. His impression
was rather in favour of the decree asked for by the
plaintiff, if the Court had only the jurisdiction to make
it, upon which he had considerable doubt after the
decision of the late Lord Cottenham in two similar cases.
Now, the course he would propose to be adopted Ras
that Sir F. Kelly should postpone his reply till Monday,
if that day would suit his convenience, and in the mean-
time his Honour would considtr the question of jurisdic-
tion, aed the judgment pronounced by Lord Cottenbam
in the case be had alluded to.

81 - 81
14 -13 1

14i 15
9 8d

88 - 87
621 - 631

13 -14 i
- 9

5 : 44

5,11 - 61

Sir F. Kelly said he should be perfectly prepared, as
he was now, to reply on Monday. As to the subject of
the jurisdiction he felt no doubt, being convinced that
if the Court should come to the conclusion that it had
no jurisdiction it would be in effect a total denial on the
part of the Court to do justice between the parties.
His Honour would consider the subject between this
day and Monday, but he could not but think the de-
cisions of Lord Cottenham were unfavourable to the
jurisdiction of the Court. Looking, however, to the
Present case, and considering the litigation that had
taken place, he thought it was the duty of the Court to
struggle for the jurisdiction, if it could, in order that
the parties might not be sent de MVO to a court of law.

11 - 151
11 - 11

31 - Z 3
21 - 23

74i- 75
:'5 57
2d par
19 20

••• '''

68 - 70
91 - 92
76 - 78
24 - 1:6
96 -98
661 • 671

The further arguments in the case were then postponed
to Monday, when Sir F. Kelly will reply, should the
Court consider it necessary.

58 - 62

Nothing of the least interest came before any of the
other Equity Courts to-day.

70 - 75
6 - 8
6 - 8
78i 79

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief-Justice Campbell,
Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Erle, and Mr.
Justice Crompton.)

7 8
100 -- 101
100 1004
ad
83i
9• 8 d
I 8 7d

DOWELL V. GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.

In this case, which we noticed in our yesterday's re-
port, their lordships took time to consider their
judgment.

25 - 251
7i - 8i

, .
71 - ;'ll
41 - 43

10 - 8
li - 2

ii --- a

29 ... 3O

73i 7441
4i 3ii
131 13
49i 504
48 50
d par
c 1
61 6i
d tar

28 - 30

101 - 103
67 - 69
45 - 47
i 24 - 13,
6(4 60i
28 - 29
5 - 3
3 - 1

37 - 39

... --.

.• . -

IN 20,,
3,\ - 44
22 - 21
7 - 8

... .... •,

.. - ..

- n
4 - 3

- • ••I

-it 1(I
35 351
8 9 7.
211 25
3i 3in

- 51
181 - 191
53 - 55
93 - 95.
21 - 21.

! 7 g

i - 49
- 5i
2h - 2i
2i - 31
21. - 21

100 - 101
107 - 109
109 - 110

101 103
- 22
LO9 - 111

. -- 41,
1 -- 4ip

4 - 1p
2 21p

5 7
2 - 3

6 - 6i

35 - 35$

13 - 13

..•
74 SA
26i - 26ip

ii 49
41. 43
..., pip
22 - - 23
i
1 * d d
2
8 —Bi

2i -- Zip
... - pm

3i 4d
"ga 7

... --

•.• - •••
18 -18 i