The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURTS OF EQUITY.
HILL V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

By a deed dated the 26th July, 1838, Mr. and Mrs.
Radnor granted to the plaintiff an annuity of 71. per
annum, which was secured upon two houses, situate in
Union-street, Maiden-lane, King's-cross. By a prior
deed these same parties had granted another annuity to
a Mr. Gadd, secured upon the same property, and in
the event of the annuity being in arrear, a power of sale
was given to Gadd. The property in question was re-
quired by the defendants under their act of Parliament,
and, in fact, the area on which the houses stood now
forms part of the King's-cross railway station. A notice
was sent from the Great Northern Railway Company to
the plaintiff stating that the company would take the
houses, and requiring him to make a claim upon them
in respect of his interest therein. No further notice,
however, was taken of Mr. fill, but a conveyance to
the company was obtained from Mr. Gadd, under his
power of sale.

Mr. Elmsley, Q.C. (with him Mr. Young), now ap-
peared on behalf of the plaintiff, and asked that the de-
fendants might be decreed liable to pay their client the
value of his interest in the property. The houses having
been taken down, and, together with the adjoining pro-
perty, converted into a railway station, it was impossible
for the plaintiff to distrain for his annuity.
Mr. Goren, for the defendants, contended that the
notice to the plaintiff could not be construed so as to
make them parties to an agreement to purchase Mr.
Hill's interest.

The Vice-Chancellor conceived that the effect of the
notice was this, that whereas it conferred upon the com-
pany a right to take the land as against all persons inter-
ested, on the other hand it imposed upon the company the
obligation to pay to each individual owner or person having
any interest in the land, the value of such interest. It would
be contrary to all justice and equity to enable the company
after it had given that notice to the plaintiff to go to a
prior incumbrancer, and say " we find you have a certain
right beyond your interest, which, if you were to avail
yourself of it, would defeat the interest of the persons
who came after you." His Honour, therefore, was of
opinion (without determining the mere abstract question
whether a bill for specific performance would lie upon the
footing of the notice given) that the defendants were
liable to this suit brought by the subsequent incum-
brancer. In effect the plaintiff said to the defendants,
"you have defeated my title, you have got into posses-
sion, you are absolute owners of the property, and I
therefore require you to pay me that which, by your
notice, you undertook in effect to do—viz., the value,
whatever it might be, of my interest." Under these
circumstances there must be a reference to inquire what,
at the time of the notice, was the value of the plaintiff's
interest. The costs to await the further hearing of the
cause.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
THE LONDNON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COM-
PANY V. THE SHREWSBURY AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY
COMPANT.

This motion, which has been several days before the
court, was again resumed. The object of the motion
was to restrain the defendants from using the Stour
Valley Railway, or the plaintiffs' station and line at
Birmingham until the terms of payment for such user
and the regulations had been agreed upon or settled by
arbitration. And also from bringing upon the line
engines or carriages which have not been approved by
the plaintiffs, or the fitness of such engines and carriages
settled by arbitration. The facts were that the Birming-
ham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley Railway Act,
which gives power to lease that line to' the plaintiffs,
also contains a provision that in the event of such lease
being made, the defendants should have the right to
run over the line and to use the stations at all proper
reasonable times ; subject to the payment of such rea-
sonable rent and tolls as should be agreed on between
the parties and subject to the observance of all the
bye laws, rules, and regulations of the plaintiffs, or ii
the event of difference between them, subject to the
payment of such rent and tolls, and the observance of
such bye laws, rules, and regulations, as should be set-
tled by the arbitration of an umpire appointed by the
commissioners of railways. The act also contained a
provision for the cessor of the right so granted to the
defendants, in the event of their line being sold or leased
to, or amalgamated: with the Great Western, or with
certain other specified companies. By a subsequent act
the defendants were empowered to use the plaintiffs'
station and line at Birmingham, upon similar terms,
and subject to a similar cause of forfeiture. Prior to
January, 1851, the plaintiffs and defendants were on
amicable terms, but at that time the defendants formed
an alliance with the Great Western Company, who were
competing with the plaintiffs for the traffic between
London and Birmingham and Wolverhampton, and
places north of the latter; and it was not denied that
they had hound themselves to send all their traffic over
the Great Western and Shrewsbury and Chester lines,
in preference to sending it over the plaintiffs' lines ; and
to obtain an act for amalgamation as soon as possible.
This alliance, the plaintiffs contended, brought the de-
fendants within the proviso for cessor of the right of
running over the line, and declined to allow them to do
so ; but that point had been settled by the Lords Jus-
tices against the plaintiffs on the 15th of December,
1852. Upon this the defendants gave notice of their
intention to start trains on the 3d of January, 1853,
and requesting the plaintiffs to make all necessary ar-
rangements. The plaintiffs, however, disputed the
right of the defendants to run over the line or to use
the station until the terms had been agreed upon, and
disputed the fitness of their engines. The defendants
had tendered certain terms, which the plaintiffs declined.
The case bad been submitted to arbitration, but no
award made, and the defendants claimed the right to
pay such a sum as the plaintiffs demanded, subject to
the award to be ultimately made, and to have possession
in tbe meantime. The plaintiffs contended that the
settlement of the terms was a condition precedent, and
in October had obtained an interim injunction from
the Vice-Chancellor, sitting at Reading as vacation
judge, to restrain the defendants from running their
trains.

The Solicitor-General and Mr. Speed now songht to
make that injunction perpetual. They contended that
the settlement of the rent and tolls was a condition pre-
cedent to the right of the defendants to come upon the
line. The two companies were now rivals, and hostile
to each other, and it might be expected that the plain-
tiffs would iisist on their extreme rights. They had a
bye-law which compelled the prepayment of tolls. That
bye-law had been settled by the Board of Trade, with
the concurrence of the defendants, and therefore they
were bound by it. It would be most dangerous to allow
two competing companies to be using the same station
without having the terms and regulations first settled.
With respect to the use of unapproved engines the court
had decided in the Midland Railway Company v. the
Ain bergate Company (Weekly Reporter, voli.,
p. 162),
that it was not only the right but the duty of a com-
pany to inspect and approve the engines running
c,ver its line, and in the present case it was more
than usually necessary to take this precaution, be-
cause the line passing over mining districts, it was
most important that the weight to traverse it should
not be too great. These
subjects were now pending
before the abitrator, but the defendant had delayed the
award in every way, by refusing to give the necessary
information as to the amount of accommodation that
would be required.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Giffard, for the defendants, urged
that the real object of the plaintiffs was to
hprretveantt the
defendants ever using the line at all, and for
pose every possible objection was raised. The defend-
ants had given all requisite information ; they had stated
the number of trains which they intended to run per
diem, and they had given a detailed account of the
accommodation which those trains would require,
although the plaintiffs were as well aware of that as the
defendants themselves ; but they had declined to bind
them-elves for any specific time to that number of trains.
They had offered to pay any reasonable sum pending
the arbitration, and it was obvious that their right
under the act was a nullity if the present course was
persisted in. The settlement of terms was not a condi-
tion precedent, all the plaintiffs had a right to was ample
B'.'curitY• As to the engines, they contended that the
'clause in the General Railway Act did not apply when
one company had a right, by special act, to run over
the line of another, but only to a case where there was
an agreement between the two companies, as in the Am-
bergate case.

The further hearing of the case was adjourned to
Thursday next.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—YESTERDAY.
THE QUEEN V. JERVIS.
We yesterday gave a report of this case in which Sir
F. Thesiger obtained a rule calling upon Mr. Jervis,to
show cause why a criminal information should not be
filed against him, for a libel published by him, on Mr.
Henry Allsopp, the pale ale brewer of Burton-upon-
Trent. We, however, only gave a summary of the libel
yesterday. The following is a copy of the verses in
which the objectionable matter is contained.
" To lash the vicious is the poet's verse ;
Rise, honest muse, and sing the ' farmer's curse ;
The bankrupt brewer—now a spurious squire—
Tfie wholesome butt of every tenant's ire.
well of his fame—his doubtful dip- •
The
_quac_knadvertisement, and pclelemiset's'fee
g conduct to the county hunt,
og falsehoods, and unblushing front ;
rig fa
1,71: Zerral ?orting- rather call it poaching,
The neighbour's land encroaching ;
Fed on the best ci.:lf IPers
bound for Derby shop,
While they, poor every tenant's crop,
vilowretches, must with all comply,
Their only pri
33fe a small rook pie.
But do not tell,
, thou'st better not,
The doleful tale ofyhom:saeman was shot.
No, let it rest in secrecysapferoofound,
The silenced witness is
ask of beer;
underground.
Thou bloated, red-faced, movil
Thou ' Burton Export,' hurnbnugg'es
ccrleerst!
Obscure thv parentage, though nowchrovni
In blazon boldly challenges the best.th-
Fit emblem 'tis of thy base pedigree ;
The bears, a type of thy avidity ;
The cranes, with bloody beaks, at once express
Thy grasping appetite and greediness ;
Yet all appears, to every man of sense,
Naught but a paltry scutcheon of pretence.'
In all departments thou art still the same,
The foulest quack that ever wore a name.
If you a picture of yourself would see,
In Uncle Tom' you'll find one called Legree.'
In all his villanies but faintly shine
The more than hellish portraitures of thine.
The foulest foe to all, the falsest friend.
Legree wert born, Legree's will be thy end.
Then since thy life can do no mortal good,
Lay by thy mask, throw off thy sombre hood;
Save Jack Ketch trouble, fasten thy own noose,
And give the gallows and Old Nick their dues."