The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-24 00:00:00

FRANCE.

It is stated in well-informed quarters with re-
ference to the visit of the Pope to Paris, for the
coronation of Napoleon 111., that the majority of
the Cardinals continue adverse to the journey, and
this feeling is encouraged by the counsels of the
Austrian Diplomacy ; the Pope himself not
hostile, and he as well as the Cardinals anxious
to profit by the ambition of Louis Napoleon,
and to secure advantages for the Church. It
has sometimes been the fortune of the Papal
Court to turn even the most adverse circumstances
to account, and it will easily be believed that the
earnest desire for the honours of pontifical conse-
cration is too good an opportunity to let slip.
Whenever the subject is mooted at Rome, it is in-
timated that, previous to that important conces-
sion, an old account remains to be settled between
Fiance and Rome.

The organic articles rendered the church nearly
as independent of the Papal authority as the Pro-
testant Establishment of Great Britain. The mo-
dification, if not the abolition, of these articles is
what would be demanded, and, perhaps, as a con-
dition to the consent of the Sacred College to the
Popelia journey to France.
A nethew of the Bey of Tunis has arrived in
Paris. It is said that he was secretly informed
that in case of the death of his uncle, the Bey, it
was intended by some parties to adopt certain de-
cided measures with reference to himself. He im-
mediately collected all the available property he
could lay hold of, amounting, according to report,
to 11,000,000 f., and came to France. He proposes
to fix his residence in Paris, and has purchased a
handsome house on the Quai d'Orsay, for which he
paid 600,000 f. The house is being fitted up for
his reception in the Venetian style.
It is stated -Chat the Emperor signed a decree
previous to his departure from Paris to Compiegne,
commanding that the fortifications of Havre shall
be rased, and replaced by detached forts. Such a
measure has been long demande.d by the merchants
of Havre, who find that the fortifications interfere
materially with the improvements demanded by the
increasing
.o+mmerce of the town. It is said like-
wise that ail *tional docks are to be constructed at

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—DEC. 23.
(Before the Lords Justices.)

THE OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON RAI: WAY
COMPANY V. THE SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COM-
PANY.-THE SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY
V. THE OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON
RAILWAY COMPANY.
This case consisted of two motions, one in each suit.
That in the first suit was to discharge an injunction
granted by the Vice-Chancellor Kindersley on the 7th of
December, restraining the defendants from taking pos-
session of a certain piece of land, near Dudley, in Wor-
cestershire, the right to take and use which was in dis-
pute between the two companies. The plaintiffs' act
having passed in 1845, the defendants, by their, act
passed in 1846, obtained power to make a junction on
the plaintiffs' line, and the contention between the parties
related to the point where this junction should be made.
The defendants having obtained possession of the land in
question, were desirous of making a station there. The
plaintiffs, who had already constructed a station at the
same place, filed their bill to restrain the defendants from
retaining possession of and using the ground. The ques-
tion before the Vice-Chancellor was reduced to the de-
fendants' right to take the land. The motion in the
second suit, in which the parties were reversed, was to
obtain an injunction giving effect to the claim of the
South Staffordshire Railway Company.
Mr. Rolt, Mr. Follett, and Mr. Speed, were for the
South Staffordshire Railway Company; Mr. Bethell,
Mr. Malins, and Mr. Bovill appeared for the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company.
Mr. Bethell replied.

The Lord Justice Knight Bruce—This case is a dis-
pute between two railway companies, and comes before
the Court not upon a hearing, or as upon a hearing, as
certain junction cases have recently by arrangement
come; it is before the Court simply and merely on two
motions, which cannot be dealt with in the same man-
ner as it would have been competent to the Court to
deal with the controversy on a decree. It will be neces-
sary to a certain extent to keep the two cases which are
before us, and the two questions separate. My obser-
vations will, therefore, now be confined to the first mo-
tion only, which is to discharge or vary an order made
by one of the learned Vice-Chancellors, the effect of
which is not to disturb any right of junction or any right
to easement which the defendants may have, but to
place the possession of the soil in effect with the plaintiffs,
'being the state of possession in which that soil at a
certain former period was. Now, the land in question
had been certainly acquired by the plaintiffs ; it was
their own property ; but the defendants alleged that
they, under the powers of an act of Parliament, had
acquired a right to purchase it. The plaintiffs had
`purchased it under the powers of their act of 1845 ;
they had purchased it frdm Lord Ward. The defendants,
under the act of 1846, claimed a right to purchase it
from the plaintiffs, and, under this alleged right and the
powers of their act, they caused the property to be
valued, paid the money into Court, and gave the bond,
as directed by the act, all which gives them a legal right
to enter. Whether they have exercised this right of
entry is immaterial, because the parties have so conducted
themselves that they are entitled to treat the matter as
if before the Court immediately after the proceedings
which took place in 1849. It is a right claimed as sanc-
tioned by railway laws, and which is denied by the pro-
prietor ; but it has been the habit of this Court to inter-
fere by injunction against the exercise of the summary
powers conferred on companies where there was reason-
able ground for dispute, otherwise the effect would be,
that a company, by taking certain proceedings, might
acquire a right against the will of the owner to enter on
his property. Equity has never refused to interfere in
such cases. Clearly it would not be sufficient in a case
of this description, for the owner merely to say that he
claimed the right, but he must show there is a reason-
able doubt or question to be determined at a proper period,
either by this Court or by an action at law. Touching the
dispute, as applying to the time I have mentioned, the
only question is, whether the plaintiffs have shown there
is a question of the defendants' right to take the property
in this summary way. It appears that the plaintiffs were
the earlier proprietors, and had acquired a right to pur-
chase, which they did from Lord Ward. Then come the
defendants, and say that they have a right to acquire the
fee from the first corporation, and to make a junction
which their act allows to be effected. But how is this
land to be crossed ? It is land which either was wanted
and used, or might be probably wanted and used, for
the plaintiffs' main line of railway and station. It ap-
pears to me a very improbable construction of the latter
act that it should mean that under these circumstances
the property should be taken from the earlier company,
for to effect the junction it was not necessary to take the
land. If, therefore, I had now dispose of that point, I
should decide in favour of the contention of the plain-
tiffs, leaving the question of the junction unaffected. It
is premature, for the reasons I have mentioned, to decide
the point ; but can I say that there is not a question for
:not taking the proprietor's land from him against his
will ? There is only one answer to this. lam of opinion
that the probability of right is with the plaintiff, and there-
fore the Court is bound to interfere, leaving the question
'of the easement unaffected. The order will therefore
be, as to the first motion, the plaintiffs undertaking to
abide by any order as to possession and damages which
the Court shall make, to continue the injunction, either
party be at liberty to take such proceedings at law as
they may be advised, reserving all costs, with liberty to
apply to the Court respecting the conduct or admissions
-to be made in the course of such legal proceedings.
The Lord Justice Lord Cranworth concurred.
The Lord Justice Knight Bruce : The other motion
is in another cause in which the parties are reversed, and
the motion seeks to disturb, and not in fact and sub-
stance to maintain a possession ; for there being a dis-
pute between the two companies as to the place where
the junction is to be made between the two railways, the
plaintiffs upon an interlocutory motion desire what will
be a complete adjudication of that matter, such an order
as would prevent the defendants from joining the rail-
way at any spot the plaintiffs choose. This would be a
very strong thing to do where the cause is not at issue.
The right depends on the construction of several clauses
of the second act of Parliament, not indeed very clearly
worded. Over the manner of junction the defendants
by their engineer have great control, not to be exer-
cised capriciously, but still a very considerable control,
and the question is whether this is to extended to the
the place as well as to the manner of junction. Now,
considering how much the convenience and safety of all
persons may be concerned in this question, I am not
prepared to say that the defendants are wrong ; with-
out meaning to conclude myself on the point, I am
rather disposed to think they are right. With this im-
pression it is impossible I could concur in granting an
injunction. Whether, when the cause comes to a hear-
ing, this Court will decide upon the matter for itself, or
will refer it to a court of law, I need not now say. I
think, however, that the plaintiffs should not be pre-
vented from bringing any action which they may think
right as to this part of the dispute. On this second mo-
tion, the order will therefore, be, the defendant's under-
taking to abide by any order which may be made as to
damages, to let the matter stand over without prejudice
to any question, and the parties be at liberty to take
such proceedings as they may be advised, with liberty
to apply.
The Lord Justice Lord Cranworth having concurred
their lordships rose for the vacation, and will not si
again before Hilary Term.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT-YORK, DEC. 22.

TER HULL MURDER.

The examination of witnesses for the prosecution occu-
pied the Court until nearly five o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. Dearsley, a few minutes before five o'clock, com-
menced his address to the jury, and spoke for nearly
three hours. He said, however great was the respon-
sibility which devolved upon him when he had but
one prisoner to defend, the obligation then rest-
ing upon him in having to advocate the cause of
three prisoners, was of an almost overwhelming
character. The learned counsel animadverted in
severe terms upon the prosecution not calling a
witness who had been examined before the grand
jury, an omission which he designated as an injustice
to the prisoners and the jury. He set forth the danger
attendant upon placing implicit reliance on circumstan-
tial evidence, as the most erroneous conclusions were
often arrived at with testimony of this description.
After reviewing the whole case, Mr. Dearsley concluded
by entreating the jury to decide in favour of the prisoners.
The learned Judge summed up the case in the most
careful and minute manner. After setting forth the duty
which devolved upon the jury, as respected the prisoners
and the public, his lordship read over the wlkole of the
evidence, and concluded by telling the jury that be had
done his duty to the best of his ability, and it remained
for them to do theirs firmly and conscientiously.
The jury retired at a quarter to eleven o'clock, and
returned into court at twelve minutes to one in the morn-
ing, with a verdict of not guilty as respected all the four
prisoners.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

4CI.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Freoning Badoski was charged
with having committed several forgeries upon the Bank
of England.
Mr. Thierry, boot-maker, of Regent-street, said—On
the nth of November the prisoner came to me in the
evening, as we were about to close, and asked, an Eng-
lish, for some shoes. He selected a pair of button boots
and tried them on. He asked for them in French. I
spoke to him in French, and he then said, in English,
that he did not understand me. My foreman spoke to
him in German, and he pretended that he did not under-
stand that language. I asked him what countryman he
was, and he said "Irish." (Laughter.) He spoke it
very broad. The price of the boots was 245., and he
paid me with a "five pound note," on the back of which
he wrote " Roberte." I proposed to send the boots
home for him, but he said that he would not give me the
trouble.
_ Mr. Wilson, watch and clock maker, of Mount-street,
teriekreley-street, said—On the 11th of December the pri-
g o wcaatniche hinetohaTiyinshhoips,
paenedk,etaf,
atenrd sahsokwhiigngmme ethae
charge for repairs, bought a silver watch of me for 3/ 10s
and paid for it with a "five pound " note. Ho
spoke. to
nzsa.Eibeonatgnhlie..Bll.
jeweller),
wemei nlrlseb.rr;Ekoiefi
stroeuetonsaidtictfen
prisoner came in and asked in English for
instantenPoulson,lem a then
ring. He selected one, and he then l e 7Mtahr
g.
.00ked at a brooch
and a vinegarette, the value of which together with
the rina, amounted to 15s 6d. He asked '
whether
I could give him change for
I did not think that a 51. note. I said that ; '
I could, He then said, ; I