The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-14 00:00:00

RAILWAY.

This matter was brought on again this morning.
It originally came before the court on motion for an
injuncion to retrain the defendants from forfeiting
the shares of the plaintiff in their railway, from
preventing his attending and voting at the meet-
ings of the company, and restraining the defen-
dants from promoting a bill in Parliament, either
alone or jointly with the Great Western Railway
Company, for making a junction with the railway
of the latter company so as to give them an access
to Southampton. Plaintiff was the contractor for
the line, and claims to be entitled to more than
4,000 shares in the Andover and Redbridee Rail-
way; bar the aerenciants allege that the shares have
been forfeited by reason of the non-completion of
the contract. The motion, as to part of its objects.
was refused when first brought on, but as to the
remainder it has stood over from time to time on
an undertaking by the defendants saving the rights
of the plaintiff.

Mr:Glasse (with whom was Mr. Locock Webb)
now said he could not proceed with the motion to-
day, as an affidavit had been filed this morning by
the defendants which he had not had time to
peruse.
_ _

It was then arranged that the motion should
again stand over, on the terms of the notice of
motion generally, without prejudice, defendants, if
they were so advised, to give notice for the meeting
under the Wharncliff order, bat that the meeting
meeting should not be held until the da) after next
term.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
JOHNSON V. MAXWELL.

This was a motion ex parte to restrain the pro-

prietors of the periodical called 7 wiee a Week from
using the name of the London Journal in that
work. The name is used thus, Twice a Week,
an Illustrated _London Journal. The application
was made on behalf of the proprietors of the Lon-
don Journal.
The Vice-Chancellor said there did not seem suf-
ficient ground for an ex parte injunction. The
plaintiffs must move on notice.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn and Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and

Mellor.)
THE QUEEN V. THE UNITED ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH

COMPANY.

Jr.: O'Malley, QC., and Mr. Keane showed cause
against a rule calling upon the defendants toappear
and receive judgment for a nuisance in erecting
telegraph pests on the highway. The present com-
pany succeeded the original promoters, end they be-
lieved at first that they inherited the latter's powers
with reference to the erecting of posts in the high-
way. The learned counsel said this was a vindic-
tive prosecution by the International Electric Tele-
graph Company (Baron Rothschild being only Ste
nominal prosecutor). Tne defendants had established
a uniform rate of one shilling messages between
London and Liverpool, which had materially re-
duced the rates of the other company. Application
was made by the latter company to Chancery to
restrain the defendants, but that court declined to
interfere, leaving the parties to their common law
rights. The prosecution was not for vindicating a
public right, but to put a stop to the working of the
defendants' company. He asked their lordships to
suspend their judgment, on the ground that a bill
had passed the House of Lords which, it was ex-
pected, would pass the House of Commons in a few
weeks, whereby, under certain restrictions, the com-
pany would have power to erect the posts. The de-
fendants discovered their mistake with reference
to their having purchased. the promoters' powers
to erect these posts before they erected
them ; but they fell into another common error,
supposing that the consent of the persons who had
the custody and maintenance of the roads to erect
these posts was sufficient, and that :they were not
subjecting themselves to the charge of having com-
mitted a legal nuisance. No one was connected
with the custody and maintenance of the roads had
complained of the erection of these posts.
The Lord Chief Justice asked the counsel for the
prosecution whether they would press the court to
give judgment, and compel the removal of the posts,
seeing that the company were before Parliament,
and that the bill had passed the House of Lords
which would give them powers to erect these posts.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., with whom were Mr. Lush, •
Q.C., Mr. Mills, Q.C., and Mr. Metcalfe, reminded
their lordships that the bill did not refer to the
present posts, but to posts to be put down, and
under certain restrictions. A conviction had been
obtained, and the nuisance was continuing.
Mr. O'Malley said the defendants had obtained
the consent for these posts that would be required
under the bill for new posts.
The Lord Chief Justice said the court had the
power of using their discretion whether or not they
would suspend judgment. He thought nothing
would be gained by compelling. the company to
take down these pests, when in all probability
they would have the power to put them up again
in a few weeks.

Mr. Bovill again urged there was here a convic-
tion and a continuing nuisance.
Mr. O'Malley said he was ready on the part of
the defendants to enter into any undertaking if the
bill should not to pass to submit to the verdict and
remove the posts.
The Lord Chief Justice said he could not but
think there was some vindictiveness in pressing the
court to give judgnaf nt,
Judgment was suspended till the last day of next
term.

ROSS V. GREEN AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Gibbons showed cause against a rule calling
upon the defendants, the eminent shipbuilders, to
show cause why they should not file better answers
to certain interrogatories put by the plaintiff. The
action was to recover the amount of commission
claimed by the plaintiff for having introduced the
defendants to the Spanish Government, which led
to their entering into contracts for supplying the
Spanish Government with certain ships of war.
The plaintiff contended that the contracts were
obtained through his means. The learned counsel
urged that the plaintiff was not entitled to the an-
swers asked for, on the ground that it would be a
disclosing of communications of a political nature.
The contracts were the property of the Spanish
Government, and the defendants were only their
agents, consequently any information that they pos-
sessed was the property of the Spanish Govern-
ment. He hoped the court would not call upon the
defendants to make State disclosures.
The Lord Chief Justice said the plaintiff did not
ask for confidential communications, but only to be
informed of facts.
Mr. Justice Crompton said he could not see how
information was property. Ships undoubtedly were
such.
The Lord Chief Justice said the questions were
such as ought to be answered. He conceded the
principle contended for by the learned counsel, but
he denied its application to this case.
This was the last day of term. The after term
nisi prius sittings commence to-day (Wednesday).