The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-16 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

TUESDAY, JULY 10.

DEAEDEN V. 'TIE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY
COI:RANY.-JUDGMENT.

The VIcE-CitaNcar.aola—Now I have heard this mo-
tion from beginning to end, just in the same manner as if it
lied heel broil& blfore me for the purpose of obtaining'
au injunctian when the raal case before me is, only who is to
p the coils of the motion ? Non', it appears me that
it is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this question
to enter into the great number of poiles that base been
urged. It is Lot na..essary for me to decide wlMther those
nuts, which it is admitted the CoMpanY have done, were acts
tepid; they were vrictly authoriaal to do on the construc-
tion of that part of the Act of Parliament which gave
411ern leave to enter into the lands, end do certain things on
and t'i'ler the 1 krlq, for the purpesa of setting .out the
Ra'hialy. Iliere is one thing whiCh appears to the to be
perfectly plain, Ona:,, is. this—that the pet;tioner has come
much too late to ohtan, an injunction, admitting that the
acts were such as they are re}aresented, namely, that they
are acts of gross waste, and so on ; and that there was a
cutting down of timber totally unnecessary and unwar-
rantde ; and that there was a making of solid shafts in the
manner describe.' ; and that all that was illega'. It rip-
petrs from the affidavit—first of all, of Mr. Scott—it ap-
pears " that the works and acts complained of in the rai I
bill were commenced in the month of June last, with the
knowledge at that time of said plaintiff as this defendant
believes. And he ssith that in the month of July forow-
ing, he ccnvcrsed with the steward of the said plaintiff re-
specting the fame. And this deponent said. that such works
and acts continued in operation from that period to the pre-
sent time." Then he states the cutting down of the trees was
at long ago as the month of June last. The answer represents
that some of the trees were cut down in the month of June,
as 1 understand from Mr. Jacob's copy, and some in -Sep-
tember, or, as it in my copy, some in the month of June
and the rest in the month of November. It is quite plain
that the plaintiff .knew what was going forward, and it is
stated also in the answer, " That some time about, or
shortly previous to, the month of August last, said plaintiff,
by Mr. Denison his solicitor, applied to these defendants,
through Mr. Brackenbury their solicitor, and requested to
have a plan of all the land lying between Little Borough
and Todmorden (which is a distance of 5 mi:es.or there-
abouts) through which it was intended that saidrliailway
should pass, and that accordingly and in compliance with
such request on the part of said plaintiff, a plan of such last
amntioced land was ;prepared on a large scale, being about
ten tames the scale otaa.'l parliamentary plan, and spewing
clearly ali the land through cvhich it was intended that said
Railway shouitla :lass, between .latle Borough and Todmor-
den aforesaid, and that an accurate copy of such last
plan men-
tioned
t last, delivered to was, in the month of Augta:
said plaintiff and his said solicitor, and fhb same was left
with and retained by them for several month: after said
coyyhold had been so left as aforesaid, in order that they,
said plaintiff and his said solicitor, might be fully acquainted
with the particulars of all the land as mentioned and de-
scribed in such plan, which was required by these deft n-
dents for the purpoaes of said Acts of Parliament, wheraby
these defendants say they believe that said plaintiff became,
and has been ever since said month of August last, well
acquainted with all such last mentioned particulars." And
then they state that there was than paper delivered on the
14th of November, 1837, which is mentioned in the bill ;
then the defendants say that " said estimt;te or proposal of
the said plaintiff was and is, in the judgment and belief of
these defendants, exorbitant and unreasonable." Now that
it was exorbitant and unreasonable is perfectly manifest
from the finding of the jury, for the plaintiff did, by this
paper in the month of December, 1837, require that he
should be paid the sum of 847/. expressed, besides
some other sums which are not expressed, for the timber
destroyed, and for the stones taken, and on a proper dis-
cussion of that claim of the plaintiff's, the jury thotijht it
right only to give 3601. 18s. 9d.
Mr. BACON--It is 3301.—the sum given to the tel ant it
to be deducted.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—That makes 330/. 18s. 9d., so
that one does not know what were the sums be had in his
own mind fixed as proper to he paid for the timber and
stones, but it is perfectly manifest with respect to the sum
he asked, 847/., he asked much more than twice the sum ho
was justly entitled te, and the Company refused to accede
to the demand. Still they went on talking, but on the 6th
,of March the treaty was broken off. Suppose the Directors
of the Company, or some of them, said we will not pay any-
thing—wilat did that amount to ? Was it not plain that
the Company- could not take the land for these works with-
out paying for i: either by means of an assessment before a
jury under the Act. qt. Parliament, or in the shape of da-
mages for that %AK'h was unquestionably a trespass?
therefore such words al; .these might have been uttered in
anger and in haste, but they"
could absolutely have no mean-
ing at all, and so the plaintiff must have known. Then it
appears by this Admit of Mr. i3eott, that the works here
been in continual operation, abort which there is no doul.t.
And then he says, that the other a: is " complained of by
the said bill, so fir as they have taken p: ace, in fact, or some
of them have been in constant progress' Vr operation ever
since the month of September last. And th;.3 deponent fur-
ther saith that there lit.ve been as many as I.:ve hundred
men at one time employed in and about the ca:rying rn
of the said works of the said Company, in and upon the
!aids in the said bill mentioned, and that there are not:, as
this deponent believes, more than three hundred 'so em-
ployed, and that if the said works were to be stopped
it will occasioa a very serious loss." Then because
the .plaintiff cannot extract from the Company more
than double what he is entitled .to he breaks off
any treaty with the Company, and then on the 10th of
February filed h's bill. Why, all the while, lie was cog-
nizant of what the Company was doing. Was it ever beard
when a man has for a series of months been allowing with
full notice the Act of which he complains to be carried on,
and when it wag manifest the Company must have ex-
pended large stuns of money, and were employing a vast
number of men on the works, that this Court is to inter-
fere by Injunction ? I apprehend not—l remember per-
fectly well when this affidavit tees made, and came before
mein some shape—it struck me at the time this Court

ought not to interfere, adverting to what is stated in the
answer. My opinion is, that really the plaintiff's conduce
has been this—that under pretence of the Act of Parlia-
ment, and the rights of the Lord of the Manor, and as

owner of the land, he has endeavoured to extract from the

Company that which in common justice he must have known
he was not entitled to. My opinion is, that the conduct of
the plaintiff has been extremely wrong, and that this motion
should be treated as a motion for an Injunction, after the
plaintiff has lain by so long, as that it would be improper in
the Court to grant it ; cansequently, therefore, plaintiff
must pay the costs.

MARRIAGE OF GEORGE IV. AND

111 Ii S. FITZHERBERT.

(From the Edinburgh Review.)
Wo have reecived.froin Lord Stourton a lett2r respecting
our notice of the above article, of Mrs. Fitiberbert's mar.
riage; and we have much pleasure in hying before our
readers a com,:nunieation so creditable to the feelings of the
noble Writer :

" To TUE EDITOR OF TIIE EDINBURGH REVIEW.

" Sir,—A mit;-statement, no doubt unintentional, of the
circumstances atten(;:ng the marriage of MrA. Fi;zherbert, in
one of your late articles, being liable to a can-traction, in the
views of members of her rcligiom communion, iojusious to
her 1-Imitation, you will, I am s7trc, readily oblige me by in-
,ertiug in your next Number th., following more accurate
stat.nricitt, for the lideltty of which I p!ldt.;:` my honour.
" "1.:1e marriage ceremony was perfortt.'d, nut Out ry• /his
kingdom, as you have stated. but its her out! drawing-room
in htr house in town, in the p escnce of an Oki:fling Pro-
testant el( rgyrnan, and two of her own isca”elit. relaives.
All the parti:s being now dc,!eased. to ordinary rtade»;
this discrepancy will ‘ppcar of little ntoment ; as the ce-
rereoity, rierLvt.r it was perL.rinvd, could conk'r no legal
righ:s ; and no istre followed this union. But when I
inform yqu fo4 in the one case— that stated in your arti•
c'e—it would have been r.n invalid marriage as uffeeting the
conscience of Mrs. Fitzheibert in the sight cf her own
church ; and that in the other tae it formed a conscientious
connexion in the opinion of such portions of Christendom AS
hold communion with the See of Rome, I am confident you
will permit this statement, under my name and responsibility,
to appear in your journal. I :Audi, moreover at 'td—that the
conscientious validity of the contract depended upon the fact
that the discipline of the Council of Trent as to marriage has
never been r,:ceived in this country. I owe this plain coon-
ter•statemeet to the memory of Mrs. Fitzherbert,-in order
that aspersions which, from peculiar circumstances, she was
herself unable to rebut when living, should not be inscribed
without contradiction on her tomb. That I have not 05-
ciou-ly imptsed on myself an unnecessary duty in endeavour-
ing to protect the fame of this virtuous and distinguished
lady, or am about to mislead by erroneous facts, 1 must ap-
peal to the following extract from one of Mrs. Fitzherbero
letters to myself, which closely followed certain confidential
communicattons, on which I rely for the perfect accuracy of
my infcrmaticn on this delicate subject :
" My dear Lord Stourton,—l trust wierever it pleases
God to remove me from this world, my-cond,vet and character
in your hands will-.not disgrace my family or my
Paris, Dec. 7, 1833.'
"I remain, Sir, your obedient humble servant,
"STOURTON."

" Yansfield-street, 30th June, 1838."

BRISTOL SUGAR-MARKET* JULY 13.--Con6-
tierce has, in a slight degree, been re-established in our market, and
ratter more business has been done; but looking at the Immense stock
0110,000 lihds. and 55,000 mats of sugar, and the high prices still ob.
tained, our views arc not in the least altered. As we before stated, the
great demand of this period will, in all probability, prevent any great
decline at present ; yet, such is the general conviction it must take
place, that any flat account from the principal market (London) instantly
causes a suspension of business, a dread Of buying, and an axiety to eel..
—,Bristol Mercury,