The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING-,

RAIL WAY INTELLIGENCE.
FRACAS BETWEEN THE SHREWSBURY AND
CHESTER AND THE BIRKENHEAD RAIL•
WAY COMPANIES.
A dispute, which has occasioned considerable
interest in railway circles, has just occurred between
the two companies above-mentioned. In order to
understand what follows, it will be necessary to ex-
plain bow it originated. It appears that the Shrews-
bury and Birmingham line is to open this day
(Monday), from whence the Shrewsbury and
Chester Company always contemplated receiving
some portion of the traffic between Liverpool and
Birmingham, as the distance bet ween these
two towns is the same by the route of the
London and North-Western and that via
Birkenhead, Chester, and Shrewsbury. The latter
route having the disadvantage of crossing the Mer-
sey, it is proposed by the Shrewsbury companies to I
make a reduction of charge in order to place the two
routes on an equal footing, and for this purpose a
mileage rate for the three companie3 interested in the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham route should be agreed
upcn. This arrangement the Birkenhead Com-
pany declined to accede to, and it was therefore
resolved by the other two companies competing
for the passenger traffic with the London and
North- Western to establish omnibuses from
Chester to Birkenhead, at a less charge than the
railway fare, so as to accommodate passengers who
preferred a saving of money to a saving of time.
'These omnibuses have now continued to run from
Chester to Birkenhead for several days, no doubt
considerably diminishing thereby the amount of pas-
senger traffic on the Birkenhead line. The contract
for the omnibuses is taken by Mr. Smith, an extensive
omnibus proprietor in Chester, and it has been the
practice of his drivers to take the omnibus direct to
the booking offices at the Chester general station, and
thence to carry such passengers from Shrewsbury
and elsewhere as preferred omnibus to railway
accommodation.

On Thursday last an intimation was given by the
manager at the station to the driver of one of the om-
nibuses, that he would not permit him again to enter
the station premises, for the purpose of decoying
passengers from using the Birkenhead line. No at-
tention, however, was paid to the prohibition, and in
the afternoon the driver attended with his omnibus as

usual, upon which the station- manager called in a
policeman and gave him into custody. Immediately
after the driver was conveyed to the lock-up a train,
filled with " navvies," armed with clubs, was driven
into the station, prepared for any work that might
have
,been apportioned to them. As the prisoner,
however, had been removed, no disturbance took

place.
On the following day (Friday) the driver was
brought up at the Chester Police Court, charged by
Mr. Jones, the station-manager, with wilfully im-
peding and obstructing the business of the station.
Mr. C. W. Potts appeared for the complainant, and
Mr. Kelsall, the law clerk of the Shrewsbury and
Chester Railway Company, for the defendant. It
appeared from the statement of Mr. Potts that the
station was built at the joint expense of the
London and North- Western, the Shrewsbury
and Chester, the Chester and Holyhead,
and the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway Companies ; that its regu-
lation was committed to a committee consisting of
two directors from each of the railway boards, who
had appointed Mr. Jones as a general manager. By
the regulations of the committee parties were ex-
cludeo from plying from the station with omnibuses
in the direction taken by the converging railways.
Mr. Potts, therefore, contended that Mr. Jones was
justified in ordering the driver off the station, and
that the latter, by refusing to gib, had impeded and
obstructed the business of the station, and rendered him-
self liable to a penalty not exceeding 51, and in default
two months' imprisonment under the Act 4:h and sth
'flea chap 97, sec. IG, commonly known as Lord Sey-
mour's Act.
Mr. KELSALL argued that the omnibuses really
belonged to the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway
Company during the continuance of the contract with
Mr. Smith ; that the Shrewsbury and Chester Com-
pany were part owners of the station, and as such had
a right to authorise, and did authorise the defendant
to enter upon and use the premises, and that Mr.
Jones had never consulted the station committee
before he ordered the defendant to be taken into
custody. He stated these facts for the information of
the magistrates, but denied at the same time their
jurisdiction in the matter, as the question of right
must necessarily be tried elsewhere.
The Court consulted for a short time, and
Mr. POTTS, the presiding magistrate, then gave its
decision, to the effect that no " wilful impeding or
obstructing" had been proved ; that the defendant
believed that he had a right to act as he had done,
in consequence of his instructions from the Shrews-
bury and Chester Company ; and that they must
therefore decline to adjudicate, and leave the parties
to seek a remedy in the superior courts.
The dispute between the railway companies seems
likely to furnish some employment to the gentlemen
of the long robe ; in fact, we understand proceedings
have actually already been commenced.