The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-24 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY

The COURT granted the rule.

G. Ripon, Exeter, tailor.
G. Hinves, jun., Southampton, surveyor.
R. Russell, Acle, Norfolk, bricklayer.
H. Yates, Sevenoaks, Kent, grocer.
G. Groutage, Birmingham, spade and shovel maker.
J. Hawkins, Birmingham, wireworker.
J. Sowerby, Meseingham, Lincolnshire, farmer.
W. Saunders, East Farleigh, Kent, miller.
J. E. Oliver, Maidstone, butcher.
J. Reynallt, Brynmawr, Brecknockshire, innkeeper.
H. Manwaring, Worcester, tailor.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.

J. Burnett, Edinburgh, straw bonnet manufacturer, to
meet within. Stevensou'a Rooms, Edinburgh, May 28,
and June 18, at three.
W. Steel, Edinburgh, dealer in horses, to meet within
Doyens' and Lyon's Rooms, Edinburgh, May 28, and
Juno 18, at twelve.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCENY, May 22.
TILE RIVAL OPERA HOUSES.
LUMLEY V. WAGNER.

Mr. BETHELL (in continuation from our Afternoon
E iition)—The Wagners denied that the letter of Dr.
Bacher of the 10th of March contained any mention of
his having the money ready to pay to them. It had
been, unfortunately, found impossible to produce that
letter—its loss had been one of the grew at difficulties
they had had to contend with.
The Lon') CHANCELLOR—The letter ought certainly to
have been produced, as the defendant denied that it con-
tained what it was sworn to have contained. I must
certainly take it against those who do not produce it.
Here is a case where the parties are contradicting each
other in the flattest way, the Wagners, in fact, charging
Dr. Bacher with perjury. On that part of the case, there-
fore, I cannot satisfactorily make up my mind; but when I
look at the documents, which cannot deceive, the com-
munications which passed between the parties, those
I find against you. Not a word is said in the answsr to
Lumley about the money, and if Dr. Bacher had not
offered to pay the money, Mr. Lumley ought to have
been informed of it. Besides, it appears that Madlle.
Wagner, by her labours at Berlin, had rendered her-
self unable to perform her contract. She was not in a
fit state to sing. _ _ _

Mr. BETHELL said he scarcely thought the affidavit
went to that extent. Leaving that part of the case, the
Learned Counsel then proceeded to argue that the con-
tract had been unfairly obtained by Dr. Bacher.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Da you accuse him of fraud
or misrepresentation?
Mr. BETHELL—Of misrepresentation—of obtaining
the contract by stating facts n,,t true.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—That is fraud, Mr. Bethell.
Mr. BETHELL—SO it is, my Lord, in a certain sense.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I think it is fraud in every-
body's sense.

BETHELL—It was evident, however, from the affi-
davits that the Wagners were only induced to sign the
engagement by the inducements held out by Dr. Bacher.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I think the letters are
against you, Mr. Bethel!. While they complain of the
restrictive clause, they at the same time acquiesce in it,
and all that Dr. Bacher seems to have said was, that
when she got to London she should do as she liked—
certainly a very large promise.
Mr. BETllELL_Certainly that acquiescence had been
caused by the misrepresentation of Dr. Bacher. In
conclusion, he relied for obtaining a disohnrge of their
order on the inappropriate and unwarranted application
of the jurisdiction of the Court by way of injunction.
He also relied, though less strongly since hearing the
remarks which had fallen from his Lordship, that it was
the undoubted duty of Mr. Lumley to have taken care
that the sum was for warded to the Wagners in confor-
mity with the original contract, and on the uncontradicted
fact that the money was not forthcoming till the 15th of
April. He would leave the case in this position in the
hands of the Court, being perfectly satisfied that
his Lordship, if he placed himself in the same po-
sition as Miss Wagner when she made the en-
gagement with Mr. Gye, with the season advancing,
no money forthcoming from Mr. Lumley, and no news
of him, that she was perfectly justified in treating the
contract she had made with him as at an end, and in
entering into a new one more beneficial to herself.
It being now close upon three o'clock, his Lordship
rose to attend a Cabinet Council, and the further heating
of the cause was postponed until Wednesday.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 22.
(Sittings in Banco,)
The judges who took their seats o❑ the bench in the
full court for this term. were Lord Campbell, Mr. Jus-
tice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Erle, and Mr. Justice
Crompton.

THE QUEEN V. SILL.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS applied on the part of the de-
fendant for a certiorari to remove the indictment in this
case into this court. This was an indictment against the
defendant for compounding a misdemeanour, which mis-
demeanour was the charge made by the present defend-
ant against certain persons for cheating at cards at
Brighton. The applicant stated that there was no
ground for the present indictment, which had only, as he
believed, been preferred in order to prevent the other
indictment from coming on. He alleged that an appli-
cation had been made to the magistrate at Marlborough-
street for a warrant, but had been refused; that an ap-
plication for a summons had also been made, and refused;
and that then this bill had been preferred at the Central
Criminal Court; that on the 7th of May the order for
the certiorari was obtained; and on the 1 Ith the bail on
the certiorari perfected; but that on the 10th, when the
parties were perfectly aware of the certiorari and the
proceedings thereon, he bad been unlawfully conveyed
from the Qaeen's Prison to Newgate. He alleged the
proceedings against him to have been vexatious, and
he swore that he wished to have the benefit of a

and to have
- -
Quen's counsel to conduce
hiseci a i
defence.jury,

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN.
A special meeting of this company was held on Satur-
day, at the Euston-station, Euston-square, for the pur-
pose of considering and approving, or otherwise, a Bill,
now before Parliament, to enable the Chester and Holy-
head Railway Company to extend their railway to
Birkenhead, and to amend the Acts relating to the com-
pany; and also for the purpose of considering and ap-
proving, or otherwise, an agreement for the working of
the railways of the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway Company by the London and North-
Western Company; Mr. G. C. Glyn, M.P., in the chair.
On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, it was agreed to
postpone the consideration of the Bill until June 2.
The CHAIRMAN said the most important business of
the day was the consideration of the agreement with the
Birkenhead and Cheshire Junction Company. The
object of the agreement was to obviate the necessity of
constructing the proposed new line from Chester to
Birkenhead, and upon its being confirmed by the
proprietors of both companies they would be in a
position to withdraw the Bill. The directors had no
wish to call on the proprietors of this company to
subscribe more money for new lines. He thought,
under the circumstances, that it was better for all
parties to make good working agreements than to resort
to the expedient of constructing competing lines, involv-
ing considerable expenditure of capital. An Hon.
Proprietor, who was not then present, had found fault
with the board of directors for the policy they had pur-
sued with regard to the Birkenhead line. He (the Chair-
man) had not the record then before him of negotiations
between the two companies respecting the Birkenhead
traffic, but he could state that in 1845 attempts to make
arrangements for amalgamation with the Chester and
Holyhead bad been made, and that down to the 11th of
September last there had not:been one half-year during
that period in which some attempt at negotiation with the
Birkenhead Company had not been made. On the 11th of
September last these negotiations ceased. There was an
agreement existing between the Shrewsbury and Chester
and the Cheshire Junction Company, with which they
had nothing to do. The Cheshire Junction directors had
explained this at the time they entered into the present
arrangements with the company, which were now finally
settled. The terms were mutually advantageous to
both companies. He held that no agreement would be
binding unless it were mutually advantageous to the
contracting parties. The London and North-Western
Company secured to the Birkenhead Company the most
economical working of their lice. It was a fsir ar-
rangement between the two companies, They were
Livergpad given them goods stations of
000tlo Birkenhead.ith
awarethatithad been contended that the London and
North-Western Company ought to confine themselves to
Liverpool, and
n ot
The
company
had furnishedaccommodation
for their traffic they h
the most complete description; but having done that, the
wthe
best
company was no more obliged to stop at Liverpool than
at any other place. The trade of Liverpool was not to
be fostered by a railway company. Liverpool was ex-
tending so much in almost every direction that it would
at no distant day swallow up Birkenhead, the exten-
sion of trade at that port would find its vent
at the other side of the Mersey, and under these cir-
cumstances he would ask why were they not to cultivate
the traffic of Birkenhead as well as that of Liverpool?
The traffic was increasing to such an extent at Liver-
pool that they could not accommodate it. They must
call upon Birkenhead for assistance. The company
must also look to their connexion with Manchester, and
the importance of providing the requisite facilities for
trade between that place and Birkenhead. The Londoa
and North-Western Company have more power to de-
velop the trade of Birkenhead than any other party. He
wholly denied that they were bound to go no further
than Liverpool. They had the opportunity of sending
a large traffic from the Chester and Holyhead line on to
the Birkenhead and Cheshire Junction line, and to make
the latter profitable by working it on the same advan-
tageous terms as the London and North-Western Com-
pany worked their traffic. It would prove a beneficial
arrangement in every respect. They were at the same
time perfectly aware that in consequence of a vicious
system of legislation, other parties had powers granted
them to run
over the Birkenhead line, but ho bad no
doubt they would be enabled to avoid serious conse-
quences by judicious arrangements (Cheers.)
Mr. STEWART, the secretary, then read the heads of
the agreement, which specified that the London ,
North-Western Company for a term of 99
Yeharesformer
areantao
work the lines of the Birkenhead CornpanY
company to run as many trains as the
traffic
ot
fu
require
the
(notßir-
kenhead Company shall from time to time q
by the Birkenhead Company, it being understood that
for through traffic the fares and rates shall _ e same
ratesbhe fixed
as those charged by the London dhatl els
Nor be to
th Western
places; the sum to be
Company to and from the same
allowed the London and North-Western Company for
working expenses (including passenger duty, mainte-
nance and depreciation of way, works, and plant, and
general charges) to be such proportion of the gross re-
ceipts as similar expenses of the whole railways of the
Lender (tad N9rlh-Virotexa C91131)413Y pore to tha