The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-17 00:00:00

COMPANY

Mr. ALEXANDIR, in this case, which was tried at -Liver
pool before Mr. Justice Patteson, and a verdict bad for tb
plaintiff; damages 30/, moved for a rule to show cause why t
nonsuit should not be entered, by leave of the learned Judg€
It was an action on the case, and the declaration contained to
counts. First, that the defendants had wrongfully place
and continued a gate across the public highway ; and tin.
on the 14th of Aug., the plaintiff was driving a carriag
along the high road, and drove against the gate so improperl r
placed there, by which he sustained injury in his person an, G
property. The second count charged the defendants wit
having erected the gate, and that it was their duty to keep it
in a proper manner lighted, guarded, and watched, and tin's-
by reason of its not being lighted and watched the mischief
happened. To this the defendants had pleaded not guilt-,
and the two questions for the Jury were, as to the proper cot.
struction of the gate across the highway, and secondly, as 1,
the sufficiency of the light. The evidence in the case we;
that the plaintiff, who was driving an omnibus, in endeavourhi.;
to avoid a carriage coming in an opposite direction, ran againi t
the gate-post. None of the witnesses could say positive] r
whether there was a lamp or not. The defence was, that th 2
Directors of the Company had erected the gate under tilt,
authority of an Act of Parliament, and that therefore the; r
were entitled to have 21 days' notice of action ; but it appeare(l
that no notice had been given previous to the writ being seTved
The Jury found for the defendant upon the first count, and i
would be necessary to point out to their Lordships two Acts
of Parliament referring to the point. The first was, the 3,1.
Geo. IV., chap. 49, being the Act under which the Liverpoa
and Manchester Railway was made, and the 27th rection pro-
vided that in all cases where the railway should cross the hi,l/1..
Kay on a level, good and sufficient gates should be erected un
each side, which gates should be kept shut, except at such. tint
as any cart, waggon, or other vehicle may require to pass.
The next Act was the General Highway Act, 5 and 6 Wm.
IV., chap. 30, section 71, and that required that the proprietor;
should erect good and sufficient gates, and employ pers,ms
attend to the opening and shutting of these gates, tn we'venk;
danger or injury to the public.
Lord DENMAN—Your rule is in arrest of judgment?
Mr. ALEXANDEIt—YeS, my Lord.

Lord DEsMAN—It seems to me you are entitled to it. CM
the first ground it does not appear to us that notice was nece a-
sary, inasmuch as the gate was not ou the railway, but on ti e
highway, which it was quite clear the Act of Parliament di d
not warrant. The Jury, however, have found that the gat 5
was properly erected—l presume, on the gs'ound that it was
great public benefit. Then comes the question of whethe
on the second count the verdict was proper. It would sees
from that count that the defendants had a right to erect th 2
gate, and the declaration merely says that it was their dot
to leave a light. The Jury, by their verdict, having foun I
that the damage was done by reason of their being no ligb.:,
anal that being the only question to be discussed, it seems t
me that the rule ought to be granted, for the purpose of hay
ing that point decided.—Pule Nisi.

TIIE KING V. THE TOWN CLERK OF CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. Sergeant STARKIE moved for a rule in the nature of
quo warranto, calling on the defendant, Charles P. Harris ,
Town-clerk of the borough of Cambridge, to show by +Ali t
authority he exercised that office. Ile moved upon the afF.day; t
of Charles Henry Cooper, Coroner of the borough of Cam-
bridge, and the grounds of his application were—first, t oat th,v
defendant never was a Burgess, and was therefore inn: gable eP
being elected ; and secondly, that he had neglect.A : to tak
the oaths prescribed by the statute. The defendant, '.1a,1 mud I
a very large claim (4,1470 upon the Corporation, fund,. for
the loss of his office, and his deputy had claimed 2, 000/., an 1
the Corporation considered that probably the present wonl
be the most convenient mode of trying whether or not thut de-
fendant had any title to the office. Because if. as it appe are
to him," the defendant had iller,:tly exercised.the office, hes Wi3
not entitled to any compensat4.om.—Rule re.fused.