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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—Du. 23.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
THE OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON RAILWAY
COMPANY v. THE SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY Cott-
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 partie3 were reverse; 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 v. hich 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 from 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
po-ners of' their act, they caused the property to be
valued, paid the money into Court, and gave the bond,
as directed by tie act, all which gives them a legal right
to enter. . Whether they have exerciced 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 las been the habit of this Court to inter-
fere by injunction against the exercise of the summary-
powers conferret on companies where there was reason-
able ground for lispute, 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. lquity Irs never refused to interfere in
such cases. Clearly it would not be sufficient in a case
of this descriptien, for the owner merely to say that he
claimed the riglt, 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 appliing to the time I have mentioned, the
only question is whether the plaintiffs have shown there
is a question of tie defendants' right to take the property
in this summaKi, way. It appears that the plaintiffs were
the earlier proprietors, and had acquired a right to pur-
chase, which tley did from Lord Ward. Then come the
defendants, and say that they have a right to acquire the
fee from the fiat corporation, and to make a junction
which their actallows to be effected. But how is this
land to be crosed ? It is land which either was wanted
and used, or be probably wanted and used, for
the plaintiffs' rain line of railway and station. It ap-
pears to me a Nary improbable construction of the latter
act that it shoild mean that under these circumstances
the property sbuld 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 ii favour of the contention of the plain-
tiffs, leaving tb question of the junction unaffected. It
is premature, fir the reasons I have mentioned, to decide
the point ; bin 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 probalility of right is with the plaintiff, and there-
fore the Courts bound to interfere, leaving the question
of the easemert unaffected. The order will therefore
be, as to the fist motion, the plaintiffs undertaking to
abide by any cyder as to possession and damages which
the Court shal make, to continue the injunction, either
party be, at lberty to Stake such proceedings at law as
they may be rdvised, reserving all costs, with liberty to
apply to the Court respecting the condrct or admic-sions
to be made inthe course of such legal proceedings.
The Lord Justice Lerd Cranworth concurred.
The Lord .7ustice Knight Bryce : The of motion
is in anotlier 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 betv'een the two companies as to the place where
the junction is to he made between the two railways, the
plaintiff; upon an interlocutory motion desire what will
be a conplete adjudication of that matter, such an order
as world prevent the defendants from joining the rail-
way 0,6 any spot the plaintiffs choose. This would be a
very strong thing to Co where the cause is not at issue.
The right depends on ;he construction of several clauses
of tie second act of Parliament, not indeed very clearly
worded. , Over the nnnner 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 vhether this is to extended to the
the place as well as tc ~he manner of junction. Now,
'El.:tering how mad he convenience and safety of all
persons may be concerned in this question, I am not
prepared o say that he defendants are wrong ; with-
out meaning to ooncude myself on the point, I am
rather disposed to thick they are right. With this im-
pression it is impossibe I could concur in granting an
injunction. Whether when the cause comes to a hear-
ing, this Court will decide upon the rnr ter for itself, or
will refer it to a courtof law, I need not now say. I
think, however, that the plaintiffs should not be pre-
v,,nted from bringing any action which they may think
right as to this part ol the dispute. On this second mo-
tion, the order will tlerefore, be the defendant's under-
taking to abide by an; order which may be made as to
damages, to let the fitter stand over without prejudice
to any qv es'ion, anc the parties be at liberty to take
such proc:ed:ngs 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 s
again before Hilary Perm.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHER CIRCUIT—Yonic, DEC. 22.

gtiE HULL MURDER.

The examinati•n )f witnesses for the prosecution occu-
pied the Court anti nearly five o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. Dearsley, a tw minutes before five o'clock, com-
menced his address to the jury, and spoke for nearly
three hours. He mid, however great was the respon-
sibility which iev►lved upon him when he had but
one prisoner to defend, the obligation then rest-
ing upon him in taxing to advocate the cause of
three prisoner 3) 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 vhich he designated as an injustice
to the prisoners and the jury. lie set forth the danger
attendant upon placing implicit reliance on circumstan-
tial evidence, as tic most erroneous conclusions. were
often arrived at Rith 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 minnte manner. After setting forth the duty
which devolved upon the jury, as respected the prisoners
and the public, his lordship read over the whole of the
evidence, and concluded by telling the jury that he had
done his duty to the best of his ability, and it remained
for them todo theirs firmly and conscientiously.
The jury retred at a quarter to eleven o'clock, and
returned into Court at twelve minutes to one in the morn-
ing, with a vexliet of not guilty as respected :dl the four
prisoners.