The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-15 00:00:00

THE KING V. LOMAX.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied on behalf of Mr.
Rowley, the Mayor of Lichfield, for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against the
defendant for a libel upon Mr. Rowley. That gentleman
was too sensible a man to do anything but disregard attacks
merely made for party objects ; but he felt that where his
integrity as a Judge was implicated he could not act with
the same indifference.—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.
REX V. ROGERS AND OTHERS.
Mr. JOHN JERVIS applied for a rule, calling upon the
Master why he should not review his taxation of costs un-
der the following circumstances :—Previous to the passing
of the Municipal Corporation Act a quo warranto was ob-
tained in the Court of the County Palatine of Chester, calling
upon the defendant and three others to show cause why
they hold the office of Mayor and Aldermen of the borough of
Carnarvon. The Bench might feel surprised on hearing
that a quo warranto had issued from the Court of the
County Palatine, but such was the case. From the length
of time occupied considerable expenses were entailed, and
on the bill of costs beimg taxed by one of the Masters be
reduced several items ; one of them, for instance, from 601.
to 301., and another from 1001. to 401. If the Master had
been aware of the whole proceedings in the Court of the
county, he was satisfied these and other items would not
have been reduced in the way described. Under these
circumstances he trusted the Court would grant a rule,
which his Lordship accordingly did.

SHERIFF'S COURT, Nov. 14.
TURNER V. THE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages in a
case in which the plaintiff, a gentleman of large fortune, re-
siding at Hanwell Park, claimed compensation of the defen-
dants for the injury alleged to accrue to his property from
the apportionment of a part of his land for the purpose of tho
intended railway.
The facts of the case on the part of the plaintiff are sub-
stantially as follow .—ln 1828 the estate of Hanwell was
purchased by the plaintiff, as stated by Mr. Geo. E. Shut-
tleworth, auctioner, with some portions of land contiguous,
for a sum amounting to about 8,000/. Since then he had
made certain improvements and additions to the mansion,
which, but for the railway, would have made the property,
worth 17,000/. He now claimed for a small portion of the
land through which the road is to pass somewhere about
600/., and in addition a further sum for the injury which
would follow to his comforts, as, previous to the erection of
tho railway, he enjoyed delightful views of the.aurrounding
country, which took in Richmond, Betchworth Castle, Ban-
stead Downs, Epsom, &c. ec,c. It was alleged that all
these comforts would be destroyed, and it was she opinion
of Mr. Shuttleworth that the depreciation of the property
in consequence would amount to 2,5501.
Mr. Smith, a surveyor, gave similar testimony, but he
estimated the depreciation somewhat higher.
Sir W. FOLLETT contended that the Act in question did
not authorise a jury to give what was now claimed—a fanci-
ful compensation. Certainly for the land the plaintiff was
entitled to recover, and it was rather singular that in the
course of so extensive a railway as the present, this was the
first case in which a claimant had found it necessary to apply
to a Court of justice.
The Sheriff summed up, and the jury retired for some
time, and then found a verdict for the plaintiff for 5001.,
being 1501. for the land, and 3501. for the severance thereof.