The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-08 00:00:00

REMOVAL OP SMITHFIELD MARKET.

The growingr, interest exhibited by the trade and the
public with reference to the removal of Smithfiebl-mar-
het and the expected. opening, of the new ones. at Copen-
hagen-fields next;rnonth, renders of no. small importance
all° trustworthy information upon this subject. Many
were the inquiries, and earnest the interrogations of hun-
dreds of country dealers, and traders front the provinces,
who attended the inarket at Smithfield yesterday, upon
their perusal of our-article as to the period of opening the
" new markets" by the corporation ; and, in many in-
stances erroneous were the answers given to these deeply-
interested parties with regard to the precise mode of noti-
fication to be adopted prior to the closing of Smithfield,
and the powers confided to the Corporation as to the ma•
nagement of the new markets when they are opened.
In order to set the public right upon this score, we have
gathered the following particulars, which are of an official
character, and being obtained from documents bearing the
stamp of anthority, they BR ay be unhebitatingly relied on.
To make the matter still plainer, we have sectionised
the subject, so that a ready answer may be furnished upon
any point upon which information may be
.sought ley the
inquirer.

POWERS OF THE CORPORATION.
The powers given to the Corporation of the City of Lon-
don, as to the control of the new market, are conferred by
what is termed the " Metropolitan Market Act, 1851," (14
and 15 Victoria, cap. 61), this being the " short title" of
Act, which, while passing through its several legislative
stages, was known as the" Smithfield Removal Bill."
Special provision was made in this act for the market
being controlled by " five Commissioners," who, for the
purposes of the act were to be appointed to be "one body
politic and corporate, by the name of the ' Metropolitan
Cattle Market Commissioners,' and who by that name
should have perpetual succession and a common seal, and
the usual powers of bodies so constituted." Thirty-six of
the clauses of the act define the duties of these imaginary
" Commissioners," but the thirty-seventh runs to the fol-
lowing effect :—" XXXVII. Provided always that if,
within six calendar months after the passing of this act,
the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of Lon-
don, shall, under their comenoa seal, signify to one of her
Majesty's principal Secretaries of State that the (said
Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons desire to undertake the
execution of this act, then, except in the case of and after
the publication in the London Gazette of such notice as
hereinafter mentioned'there shall not be made any appoint-
merit of commissioners under this act, but the said Mayer,ll-
dermen, and Commons shall exercise thepswers and perform
the duties which, by the enactments hereinbefore contained
would otherwise be to be exercised and performed respec-
tively by Commissioners under this Act." Such significa-
tion was made to the Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole, by the
Corporation, and the said " Mayor, Aldermen, and Com-
mons proceeded to select--from several others—the site of
the New Market at Copenhagensfielde. Their act was
approved of by the Government, the money was raised
upon the credit of the corporate seal, aid the works, as
was states yesterday, are now far advanced, the market-
place being nearly ready for opening. All tolls, rents, aid
payments, in consequence, will be received by the corporate
authorities " for their own use," and will be " paid and
applihd as they may direct." Salaries and wages are to be
paid, aid "purchases, works, and contracts" are to be
entered into independently of the " approbation of the
Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury." The moneys
are to be paid into the Chamber of the Corporation, and
not into the " Bank of England," as would have been the
case if "Commissioners" had been appointed.
NOTICES AS TO THE OPENING OF THE NEW MARKET AND
THE CLOSING or SMITHFIELD.
With !Tigard to the precise steps which must be taken
prior to the closing of Smithfield and the opening of the
new markets, the following may be taken as the facts of
the ease. Immediately after the Markets' Improvemeut
Committee have reported to the Corporation that they
have provided the market-places, slaughter-houses, and
other conveniences, and fixed the table of tolls and pay-
ments, and appointed the market days, they will report
to the Common Council. That body will then report to
one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State what
they have done " concerning the premises," annexing to
such report a copy of the table of toils and payments fixed
as aforesaid. Then it will be lawful for the Secretary of
State to fix the time for the opening of the said markets
and slaughter-houses ; and by a notice under his hand, to
be published in the London Gazette, to notify that suck
market-places and slaughter-houses have been provided,
and the time when the same will be opened; and that from
the time so mentioned Smithfield-market will cease to be
a market for the sal. of cattle and horses ; and from and
after the time mentioned in such notice Smithfield-market
will cease to be a market for the sale of cattle and horses.
The markets (live, dead, or hide) are to be deemed " pub-
lic markets," and it is specifically enacted that "no new
market," after the opening of the new metropolitan mar-
kets, "shall be opened for the sale of cattle and horses, in
the cities of London and Westminster, or the liberties;there-
of, or in the borough of Southwark, or at any place dis-
tant less than 7 miles in a straight line from St. Paul's Ca-
thedral, in th., city of London." (14 and 15 Viet., c. 61,
clause z.)

GENERAL POWERS 07 CONTROL.
The corporate autheities possess, under the Metropoli-
tan Market Act, the foowing additional powers :—To
make bye-laws : subject always to the sanction and ap-
proval of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State;
to let slaughter-houses and stalls; to fix a table of tolls and
payments • to take the " care, management, and centrol of
the market-places, slaughter-houses, lairs, conveniences,
and matters" connected with the market ; to appoint offi-
cers ; to authoi ise inspects rs to seize cattle and meat unfit
for food, and to destroy the same ; to regulate the route
and times for the driving of cattle to and from the mai-
kets ; to make contracts, grantlicenceste slaughter-houses,
and generally to supervise the entire establishment, the
in,uclus operavuli for the government of which will, of
COWS', be developed as experience may dictate.
TUE SCIIEDULI OF TOLLS
The Markets' Improvement Committee have not at pre-
sent made public their schedule of tolls ; indeed it is not
yet quite certain whether they have " fixed" the rates. Be
this as it may, we give the following as tke Goveraliout
scale, it being ()Limited (14 and 15 Viet., c. 61, cl. 8)
"'That such tolls and payments do net exceed the several
and respective sums mentioned in the schedule to the Act,"
t and which are as follow :

TOLLS.

Sheep—For every score sold, 21. per score.
Beasts—For every score sold, Is. 81. per score.
Horses—For every entry of sale, 4d. each.
Pigs—For every score, 4d.
DUE/.

Pens for sheep, calves, or pigs (permanent) le. each.
Ties for' beasts or calves, ld. each; for horses 2d. each.
flay duty, per load, and for each entry of sale, Id.
Straw duty, ld. per load, each entry of sale, Id.
Between the above schedule of "tolls" and "dues" there
is some little alteration at compared with the existing
charges at Smithfield; the difference, however, either one
way or the other, may generally be regarded as insignifi
cant.

• This exception has reference to clause X_XXIX., which
provides that if the Corporation make default, commissioners
are to be appointed to execute the act.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 6

COURT OF CHANCERY.
FINCIIIN V. THE LONDON ♦ND BLAXICWALL RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This part-heard appeal, from an order of Vice-Ckan-
cellor Wood, was this morning resumed.
The Lord Chancellor proceeded to deliver the judg-
ment of the Court, and said the matter, as represented to
him, was that the plaintiffs were the owners of a manu-
factory which was situated on each side of the Black-
wall Railway ; that the company, having obtained
powers to widen the railway, proposed to do so at the
point where the manufactory of the plaintifs stood, not-
however, by building on the land, but by means of over-
hanging buttresses, and they gave the plaintiffs notice-
under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, that they
proposed to take what had been called a " stratum of
air" over the plaintiff's manufactory, but which was, in
fact, an "easement"—namely, a running over the plain-
tiff's property without touching it. The notice by the
company to take this easement was only given two or
three days before the expiration of the compulsory
powers. This notice was given in July, 1553, and in
the following August the plaiutiffs gave a counter notice
to the company. requiring them to take and purchase
the whole of the manufactory. Matters remained in
this state between the parties until the 4th of May, 1854,
when the company gave the plaintiffs notice of their in-
tention to cause a special jury to be summoned for the
purpose of settling the amount of compensation to be
paid by the company for the purchase of the easement
and right of passage over the yard and manufactory, and
fm- any damage sustained. The plaintiffs then filed
their bill for an injunction to restrain the company from
taking any of the steps mentioned in the last notice ;
and the Vice-Chancellor, being of opinion that the com-
pany were bound to take the whole of the manufactory,
or no part of it, granted the injunction asked for,
upon the undertaking of the plaintiffs to sell the pre-
mises to the company and make a good title to them.
Subsequently the company withdrew their notice of
May, 1854, and gave a fresh notice, to the effect that
they were willing to purchase the plaintiffs' estate and
interest in the whole of the manufactory. The plain-
tiffs then lied a new bill to restrain the company from
proeeding under the last notice, and on the loth of
August applied ex parte to him (the Lord Chancellor)
for an injunction, which he granted for the following
reason —namely, that this Court 'would not allow a
powerful company to take proceedings of which there
was a doubt as to their legality. On behalf of the com-
pany it had been contended that an " easement" was a
"hereditament ;" but looking at the whole context of
the act, he (the Lord Chancellor) was inclined to think
that " hereditament" there meant a coporeal •ne—
something that might be a subject of tenure, and not a
mere right of way. Moreover, he was of opinion that
the Legislature never intended that a right of way should
be taken by the company from an owner, any more than
it intended a right of common or of turbary should be
taken. He did not agree with the Vice-Chancellor in
thinking that the notice to take the right of way was a
notice to take a part of the manufactory, and therefore
the view that he had taken of the case hastily, when it
was before him ex parte had not been altered at present.
At the same time he should leave himself open to con-
viction. On the main question, however, as to the ille-
gality of the original notice, his (the Lord Chancellor's)
opinion remained unaltered, and he still thought it was
not warranted by the Lands Clauses Act. Then
'trine the question---ought the injunction to go ! Upon
that point his opinion was changed, and he had
taken a new view of the case, and was now convinced
that this Court ought not actively to assist the
plaintiffs in enforcing an equity, when by their own
conduct they had raised an equity against themselves by
giving the counter notice of August 1853. Whether,
therefore, the original notice of the company were in-
valid or not, did not matter, as the plaintiffs, by sub•
stantially telling the company that they were willing to
sell to them the whole reanufactury, had deprived them-
selves of any equitable right to an injunction to restrain
the company from taking any steps for the purpose of
ascertaining the value of the whole manufactory. There
could be no doubt that the company bad been under
this impression—that the plaintiffs, although unwilling
to sell the right of way by itself, were quite willing to
sell the whole property, of which the right of way formed
a part. Upon this impression the company had doubt-
lessly acted, and it was therefore rather toe late for the
plaintiffs now to say, after leading the company to sup-
pose that they were quite willing to sell the whole, that
the company should be restrained from taking any steps
to effectuate the proffer of.the plaintiffs. In fact, the
plaintiffs had created a counter equity to the one they
possessed respecting the invalidity of the first notice, and
could not expect any indulgence from a court of equity.
If, therefore, the parties could not come to any terms of
arrangement the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
The Lords Justices concurred.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.