The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-03 00:00:00

_LAW INTELLIGENC'E.--June 2.
- -

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Cock-
burn, Justices Wightman, Crompton, and Black-
burn.)
COTTAM Y. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY.

In this cause a rule nisi had been obtained to
show cause why a certiorari should not issue to
bring up an inquisition and judgment taken under
the Lands Clauses Act, in the matter of a claim for
compensation made by Messrs. Cottam. The ground
of claim was, that the railway company had inter-
fered with the support which the plaintiff formerly
enjoyed from the soil in the public street under
which the company were constructing their lice of
railway, and the ground of complaint was that the
under sheriff's assessor had inquired into the
plaintiff's right to the said support instead of limit-
ing the inquiry to the amount of compensation.
The jury found, under the assessor's direction, that
the plaintiff was entitled to nothing.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. J. Brown, supported
the rule; Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Horace Lloyd, and
Mr. Holloway, showed cause against it.
The arguments were of a purely legal character,
and the case presented such points of difficulty that
on the suggestion of the Bench it was put in a train
to b© taken before the Court of Error.

lIORROCKS V. TIIE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COM-

PAM.%

This was also an action for compensation, and
it was arranged that it should stand over till the
decision in the first case.

QUINN Y. DARBY.
This was a rule obtained last term by Mr. Chas.
Russell, for an attachment against the defendant
for not executing a deed of separation between him-
self and his wife.

Mr. Edward James, Q.C., and Mr. J. Clarke
showed cause against the rule ; Mr. Brett, Q.C.,
and Mr. Charles Russell supported it.
It appeared that the plaintiff, who is the defen-
dant's wife's father, brought an action against the
defendant for necessaries supplied to her after she
had left her husband. The action was entered for
trial at the Liverpool summer assizes, 1861, when
an agreement to separate was come to. The amount
of alimony was fixed at £2O per annum, and it was
agreed that a deed of separation should be executed,
the terms of which, in case of dispute, were to be
referred to Mr. Fisher, conveyancer, Liverpool. The
deed was prepared in the first instance by Mr.
Fisher. The parties differed, and they went before
him, when it was finally settled. The difference
that now arose with reference to the children. The
terms settled by Mr, Fisher with reference to them
were " that she (the defendant's wife) shall be at
liberty to have all or any of her children with her,
and to have free and uninterrupted converse with
them at the house in which she shall then be on
Monday in every week, or two hours on each of such
days, between 10 and 12 o'clock in the day, the
children to be brought from the residence of the said
Edward Darby, or other place of their abode, by
the said Mary Ann Darby, or by some one for her."
The deed further provided that the residence of the
children should be in Liverpool, unless the defen-
dant, who holds an office in the Customs, should be
moved to another place, or unless the children
should otherwise require, &c.
Mr. Brett, in supporting the rule, consented to
the introduction of words limiting the house to
which the children were to be brought to their
mother to within a reasonable distance.
Mr. Edward James, in showing cause against the
rule, said his client felt so strongly on the matter
that he thought he would go to gaol rather than
execute the deed.

The Lord Chief Justice regretted such a statement
had been put forth. It was tantamount to a deli-
berate statement that the defendant would disobey
the order of the Court in case it should be against
him.

Ultimately the rule was made absolute, the words
above to be introduced, and the attachment to issue
with costs if the defendant did not execute.

Rule absolute accordingly.
IN RE DE MEDINA, AN ATTORNEY.

In this case, Mr. De Medina had been fined £lOO
and suspended for three years by the Court of Ex-
chequer for certain malpractices as an attorney.
Mr. Garth, on behalf of the Incorporated Law
Society, brought the subject under their lordships'
notice.

The Court considered that before acting in the
matter it would be better to call upon the attorney
for an explanation or answer.
Rule nisi granted.