The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

,2
. - lil

[PRICE SD.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, March 20.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before Vice Chancellor Kindersley.)

THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE OXFORD,
WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON RAILWAY COMPANY.

Upon the 4th of August, 1845, an act of Parliament
passed whereby the shareholders of the Oxford, Worces-
ter, and \Volverhampton Railway Company were incur-
, porated for the purpose of constructing a railway from
the city of Oxford to the town of Wolverhampton. The
proposed railway was to be a continuation of the Great
Western line, the proprietors of which were to be at
liberty to take shares in it to the extent of 750,000/.--
which was a moiety of the entire capital--and the en-
gineer for the time being of the Great 'Western Railway
was to superintend its construction.
.The line was to be
constructed on the broad guage principle, except in two
particular portions of it, viz,, where it was to meet the
Birmingham and Gloucester and the Grand Junction
Railways. The defendants, however, commenced
making their line throughout upon the narrow guage,
upon which this suit was instituted, and, in addi-
tion, an information filed against them to compel them
to adhere strictly to their act. This was a motion to
amend the bill by making the Attorney-General a plain-
tiff in the suit, in order that the public interest might be
protected.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. G. L. Russell supported
the motion..

Mr. Rolt, Q.C., and Mr. Jessell, on the other side,
contended that the public interest was sufficiently
protected by the surveillance which the Board of Trade
exercised over the line in the course of its construction.

The Vice-Chancellor said that this application was
in fact to decide whether or not the Attorney-General
was a party necessary to the cause ; that was to
say, whether a decree made while he was not a
party would be made in the absence of any one who
ought to be represented. As to the nature of the
decree which might be made, he could and ought
not to say a word ; the question, therefore, resolved
itself into this, how far would any decree made in the
present state of the suit, by affecting the public interest,
require that the public should be represented before the
court. Now, upon referring to the Act of Parliament
giving the Board of Trade the right of disallowing the
opening of a line, it appeared to him that, so far as the
court was at present informed, the public was sufficiently
protected. Whilst, therefore, his Honour decided that,
in the present position of the matter, the motion was
not to be granted, he reserved to himself the right of di-
recting the Attorney-General to be made a party, if,
upon the hearing of the cause, he should have reason to
believe that the interest of the public required that that
officer should be a plaintiff.
The motion being, for the present, not acceded to, the
Solicitor-General proceeded to open the case upon its
merits in moving the court for a decree.
The opening was not concluded when his Honour
rose.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
TOMKINS V. LANG.

Mr. Waley appeared in support of a petition in this
suit, stating that in the administration of the testator's
estate two sums of money had been carried to the sepa-
rate account of two legatees, who had been convicted of
felony, and had been tr,nsported, and whose interests
had therefore been forfeited to the Crown, and praying
that these sums might be paid out to such persons as
the Crown should by sign manual appoint.
Mr. Wickens, on behalf of the Crown consented, and
The Vice-Chancellor made the order as prayed.