The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to-day in his court, Lin-
coln's-inn. It is not usual generally for the Equity
Courts to sit after the last day of term till the first ;:_Neal,
but the Lord Chancellor, anxious to dispose of the arrear
of appeals caused by his late indisposition, has deter•
mined to sit during the whole week. At present there
are nearly seventy appeals set down for hearing.
THE sHREWSRURY ♦ND CHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY V.
THE CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY COMPANY,
THE BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, ♦ND CHESHIRE
JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, AND THE LONDON AND
NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

In this case, yesterday, a motion was made before the
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce for an injuction to restrain
the defendants from interfering with or obstructing the
station accommodation of the Shrewsbury and Chester
Railway Company, at the joint station at Chester, and
from doing any act restricting them in the enjoyment of
such complete station accommodation as was necessary
for their traffic, and from preventing or precluding the
plaintiffs, their servants, and clerks, or the joint servants
and clerks of the defendants and plaintiffs, from booking
at the joint station, and in the ordinary joint booking-
office which had hitherto been used, and in the ordinary
or usual manner, either goods or passengers, beyond the
limits of the plaintiffs' railway, whether to Wolverhanip-
ton or otherwise; and from in any manner interfering
with the plaintiffs' through traffic, and from preventing
the access of any omnibus or other vehicle duly autho-
rised by the plaintiffs to carry their passengers either to
or from their railway, or to or from Birkenhead, or to
or from other places; and from confining er limiting the
right of access to the said joint station to vehicles
licensed only to ply within the city of Chester, or from
other wise;intnfering with such accommodation and rights
as under the circumstances aforesaid the plaintiffs
were entitled to with the usual directions. Mr. Ma
fins and Mr. Giffard were the counsel for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Russell, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Willcock, Mr. Follett,
Mr. 13irkbeck, and Mr. Glasse, appeared for the three
companies, the defendants, and applied that the motion
might stand over, the affidavits, in part, having only been
filed on Saturday, and the counsel for the plaintiffs
asking that some arrangement, in the meantime, for
the management of the joint station, might be made.
The Vice-Chancellor allowed the motion to stand
over until Monday, but said he thought that ho ought
not to interfere without allowing the defendants an
opportunity of filing affidavits.
This morning, at the sitting of the Court,
Mr. MALINS renewed his motion before this branch
of the court, and

The LORD CMANCELLOR granted an interim order for
the inj unction, thereby iu effect reversing the j udgmeut
of the Court below.

CHAMBERS V. BIGGER S.
The arguments in this appeal occupied the Court the
remainder of the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour sat to-day, and heard bankrupt petitions
and motions, but nothing of any interest came
before him.
None of the other Equity Courts will sit till Monday,
with the exception of the Lord-Chancellor's.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
:Sittings at Nisi Prins before Mr. Justice WIOLITM/N
and Common Juries.)
SKELLORN V. LEVY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a person
in the employment of an upholsterer named Halford, in
the Strand, to recover compensation in damages from
the defendant, Mr. Morrice Levy, a " wine merchant,"
living at 25, Norfolk-street, for having caused him
to hare been given into custody, on a charge of felony,
which was, according to the case of the plaintiff, utterly
without foundation. It appeared that on the 24th of
April last the plaintiff was employed at the house of the
defendant to take up and carry away a carpet, and to do
some other work. On his leaving, the defendant dis-
covered that a cheat of drawers had been broken open,
and that a gold watch and jewellery stated to bo of the
value altogether of 4001, had been stolen, which
he assumed to have been carried away i❑ the
carpet. Suspicion naturally attached to the
and he was take into custody, in which
he remained all night, and was taken before
Mr. Henry, at Bow-street, the next morning ; but the
defendant being beyond the specified time with his wit-
nesses, ho was discharged. lie was again, however,
given into custody, but, on the charge being investigated
by Mr. Hall, he was again discharged. None of the
property was found on the plaintiff, or at his house in
Clerkenwell ; but it was endeavoured to be shown that
the marks on the drawers corresponded with the size and
shape of the hammer with which the plaintiff had been
at work. It was on the other hand shown that several
persons were at work in the house at the time the rob-
bery was supposed to have taken place.
Mr. WATSON, who appeared for the defendant, briefly
addressed the Court in his behalf. He held that the
defendant had done no more than would be done by any
of them if they were placed in a similar position. The
defendant, in the course he had adopted, disobeyed not
simply a private but a public duty, from which it would
not have been well, upon any consideration, for
a good citizen to shrink. It could not be
denied that some suspicion attached to the
plaintiff. As the defendant had not pleaded justification
he contended that since the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover some compensation, that it would be of the most
moderate amount.

Mr. M. Chambers was for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN summed up the case, and left
it to the jury to say the amount of compensation to
which the plaintiff was entitled.
The jury expressed a wish to retire, when it was
found that a juryman, named Welby, who had been
challenged, had remained hi the box.
An unexpected difficulty being thus thrown in the
way of the settlement of the case, the Learned Judge,
after some discussion, was appealed to as to what should
be done in thin dxtremity.
Mr. Juste WiotirmAti said he should discharge the
jury.
- -

I. order, however, to avoid expense, it was agreed
between the parties that a verdict should be taken with
consent.

The jury, after much deliberation, gave a verdict for
the plaintiff for 211.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.;

OLD COURT:

(Before the RECORDER and Mr. Alderman CARDEN.)
William Walters, an omnibus driver, was indicted for
stealing three pair of gloves, a handkerchief, and a
measure, the property of Henry Parry.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor, who
is a certificated attorney practising at Deptford, that he
went to the White Hart public-house in London-street,
Greenwich, on the 7th of November last. Ho took off
his coat, according to his custom, on entering the house,
and on leaving between two and three in the morning he
missed it, and on search being made it was found in the
taproom. The articles in question, he said, were in
the pocket when he took off the coat, but on it being re
turned to him he found that they had been taken out.
The prisoner IN&saulted him when he left the house, and
completely covered him with flour, and for this assault
he gave him into custody. Ho had no idea that the
articles were stolen by the prisoner, but on being
searched at the station house they wore found upon him.
Several witnesses were called for the defence, from
whose evidence it appeared that there was a "regular
row" in the coffee-room at the time of the occurrence,
with rrspect to the payment for some punch which iLz
company had been drinking. The prosecutor got very
excited, took off his coat to fight, jumped upon a table,
and struck with a cane a respectable old gentleman, old
enough to be his father. One a fitness said that having
been called by the landlady to resue a girl from the row,
he went into the coffee-room, and found three or four
gentlemen lying on the top of each other at the door,
evidently engaged in a scuffle. This witness also said
that the prisoner, before he was taken into custody, took
the articles alleged to have been stolen out of his pocket
and showed them to him, saying that he had found them
on the floor in front of the bar, and supposed they had
been dropped by some one i❑ the scufße.
The witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent
character.
The RECORDER said, in summing up, that there had
been no direct defence by the prisoner to the charge,