The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-21 00:00:00

ifourtoMbition

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN V. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

The points involved in this case are of the utmost
importance to railway companies.
This was an appeal from an order of the justices at
the Quarter Sessions for Surrey, with respect to the
rating of the line which passes through the parish of
Croydon. The rule called upon the justices to show
cause why a rate reducing the amount of rating from
21,300/. to 15,765/. should not be quashed from its
inefficiency, in order that the said rate and assessment
be reduced to 5,9701, or such other sum as the Court
might think fit. The rate was made in November,
1847, and four questions were reserved for the de-
cision of the Court. The first was, in effect, whether
the railway ought to be rated on account
of the earnings in the six miles for which it
passed through the parish of Croydon, or only in
proportion to the earnings of the whole of the line,
the largest earnings being obtained in that parish.
The second point contended for by the company was,
that the cost of maintaining the permanent way should
be deducted before the rate was made. The third
was, that the London and Brighton had made an
agreement, which was sanctioned by Parliament, by
virtue of which the South-Eastern to Dover ran over a
portion of the other line, and the London and Brighton
over a portion of the line of the South Eastern, both
being in the parish of Croydon, no toll being
paid, the use of the one being considered an equiva-
lent for the other. The fourth point arose out of the
following :--The rate was made in November. On
the 18th of August certain accounts were drawn
out, in accordance with general Acts of Parliament,
but they only brought down the affairs of the railway to
the 30th of June. The rate was really made on the
18th of August. The company said, that on account of
the inefficient state of the plant when the accounts were
made, and in consequence of having opened various
lines between June and November, that the condition
of the line and its circumstances were altogether
altered when the rate was made, and that the makers
of the rate were bound to ascertain by some means or
other the value of The property rated at the moment of
the making of the rate.
Mr. PASEILEY appeared to show cause against the
rule. He held, on the strength of several
cases which he cited, that in railways, as
in the case of canals, the rate must be
evied upon the earnings of the land in a particular
parish, and not in proportion to the earnings of the
whole route. Then the use of the two portions of line
in the same parish by the two companies was just
like two farmers agreeing to use portions of their
farms alternately, or of two gentlemen, one holding a
house in the country and another in town,
agreeing to occupy each other's house for certain
periods. It was a private understanding, and the
real owner was the person to be rated. It
was utterly impossible to make out a valuation with-
out occupying a good deal of time. The value of the
property assessed could not be stated at the time the
rate was published. He contended that the justices
were correct in the rating they had laid down.
Air. J. CLARKE followed on the same side, after
which

Mr. GURNEY proceeded in reply, but had not con-
cluded when the Court intimated that it would hear
him in continuation on the first day after term, the
27th instant.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Continued irom our Afternoon Edition.)
THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT V. SMITH.
In this case, which will be ,found partly reported
in another page of this day's impression of our paper,
after our first edition went to press the Court de-
livered judgment.
The COURT was unanimous that the judgment
should be for the plaintiff, being of opinion that al-
though the document of 1665, cited in the argument,
was not receivable in evidence as not being a public
document entitled to credit in a court of law, there
was still abundant evidence to show that the payment
of the toll in question was immemorial.
Judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.