The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-15 00:00:00

RETAIL BREWERS.

Motion made,. and Question put, " That leave be given to
bring in a Bill to enable Retail Brewers in the Midland
Counties to keep open their houses till twelve o'clock at
night, the same as the Metropolitan Retail Brewers." The
House divided :

MINORITY—AYES, 4.
Hume, Joseph Peellell, Captain TELLERS.
O'Connell, 31. J. Trelawny, J. S. Sfuntz, C F.
Collett, John

MAJORITY-NOES. 77.

RAILWA 1 COMMITTEES.

(YESTERDAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP No. 1.
The Select Committee, appointed to consider the merits of
the Bills comprised in this group, re-a-sembled in Room 30,
at the usual hour this morning; Lord Granville Somerset in
the chair.
THE SOUTH-EASTERN SCHEMES.
Mr. G*EGORY w-s beard on behalf of Lady Spencer, who
complained that the Mid Kent line would seriously injure
her property at Mereworth.
In the cases of Mr. Cotton, Sir Percy Dyke, and Captain
Ryder Burton, the company had made terms with the
opposing parties.
Mr. TALBOT called upon- his friend who appeared for the
South-Eastern Company to disclose the terms which had
been come to with Sir Percy Dyke.
Mr. Assmag had no difficulty whatever in acceding to the
request, although to do so was irregular. The agreement
was that they should not make the Parliamentary line with-
out the consent of Sir Pero), D.% ke ; but he must tell the
Committee, at the same time, that they would have power
to make the deviated line laid down on their plans. He
intended to propose the insertion of a clause on this subject,
and when that time arrived he should be prepared to prove
the assents of the landholders to the deviated line.
This closed the South-Eastern case.
THE BRIGHTON SCHEMES.
Mr. TALBOT then proceeded to open the case for the
Brighton Company. He commenced his address by declaring,
that if this contest were to be decided, not by the re-
sults to be drawn from the map, but upon the principle
f " vested rights," it would be necessary for him to go
largely into retrospecEive matters bearing upon the case.
Now, in the very onset he must pronounce the views of his
opponents with regard to their pre-occupancy of the district
in question to be altogether fallacious, and when the proper
time arrived he should be prepared with evidence to sub-
stantiate this statement. Raving touched upon this pre-
liminary point, he would now go into the prima facia case
of his clients. The Committee were aware that
he had the honour to represent a company which consisted
of two partners—first, the London and Brighton, and,
secondly, the L)ndon and Croydon. Now the line of the
latter company was laid out and constructed at an enormous
expense, no less indeed than 100,000/. per mile, not
so much with the view of accommodating London
and Croydon tr,ffic, but the preamble of the original
Croydon Act would show that the Legislature intended that
the line should be made the leading avenue of all railways
coining from the Kentish districts to the metropolis. But it
was urged by the South-Eastern Company that the
Croydon line stood in the position of an expensive
toll-gate. through which they were compelled to
pass. No doubt it was a toll-gate; but it was one
over which they had the power of regulating the toll to be
paid. and if they carried a passenger from London to Dover
at 3d. per mile, all they would have to pay to the Croydon,hie
for toll, would be 3d. per mile for each passenger, minus tine
cost of working ten miles; or if they chose to convey the
epas-
senger for ld. a mile, they would have to pay the Croydon no
more; so that in point of fact the South-Eastern had absolute
Company.
He over the toll to be paid to the Croydon
e
He disposed of the allegation that the six miles of
South-
Eastern line from Reigate to Croydon would be th
renderedectihgthe
useless by the passing of a Mid Kent line, by directing
attention of the Committee to the factthatt
hoseu_suixikimfoirdtles
might be made available for the Reading,
and Reigate line, an then proceeded to date
that

the South-Eastern had never come forward to supply
the warts of the public till they were forced to do so
by the Brighton Company. For instance, they did not
propose a line for Hastings until the Brighton Gm-
pany had brought forward a coast live from Brighton
through Lewes to Hastings. He then came to the
consideration of the merits of the two schemes
before the Committee. The Learned Gentleman having oc-
cupied a considerable time in discussing thj merits of compe-
tition a: applied to railways, and impressing upon the minus
of the Committee the importance and magnitude of the
ques-
tion they had to decide, which could not be viewed in the
light of a local, but as an European question, and, according
to same, as an Asiatic question ; for it was said by one of his
Learned Friends, Mr. Hildyard, he believed, that these lines
hal " the metropolis at one end, and the world at the
other"—went on to implore the Committee not to
hand over the county of Kent to the tender mercies of one
company, but to grant the Brighton linee, and infuse new
blood into the district. lie beeed his claim to make this
demand upon the Comientee on the ground that, in
so far as the ,;righten Mid Kent line, as between
Maidstone and London, and London and Tunbridge,
were somewhat shorter in distance than the com-
peting scheme of the South-Eastern Company, it
would better accommodate the population of the districts
through which it passed ; ii.deed the Brghton Mid Kent
line accommodated a considerably larger population than the
South Eastern. It would pass through all the large towns
on the route, while the South-Eaetere linealtogether avoided
them, in the s ,me way that their existieg line did. It was true
the works on the Brighton line were heavy, but not so heavy as
to be insurmountable, while the cog of the Brighton line from
London to Tunbridge would fall far short of that of the
South-Eastern, as between Lewisham and Oxford the ex-
cess of cost en the Seuth• Eastern line, he represented, would
be 130,0001 The earth works on the South-Eastern line
would be 2,550,000 yards; on the Brighton it would be
1,500.000 yards. The tunnelling on the South-Eastern
would he 963 yards; on the Brighten 2,600 yards. There
would be many viaducts on the South-Eastern, but none on
the Brighton line.
The Committee at this point of the Learned Counsel's ad-
dress determined to adjourn till to-morrow (to-day).

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY; April 14.
APPERLEY V. PAGE.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgmt nt to-day in this
case, tho facts of which we gave yesterday. His Lord-
ship Aimed the decision of Vice-Chancellor linight
Bruce with costs.

GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES AND OTHERS.
This case came before the Court, upon an appeal from
the decision of the Vice Chancellor of England in this
Cause. The defendant, All. Dimes, became Lord of the
Manor of Rickmansworth, in the county of Herts, in
1831, at which period a portion of the land was traversed
by the works of the plaintiffs, whose bill alleged that
they were entitled, by their Act of incorporation, to
purchase such land at a valuation of a jury.
The father of the other defendant (Scudamore) was
seised of the land in question, and had conveyed it in
1797 to the present plaintiffs, and they contended that in
cons quence of the same, the original copyhold tenure of
the property was destroyed, and that they became the
copyhold tenants. The heir (who was made a party to
the present suit), not being admitted into the right of
the posse,sion of the prop-rty, the defendant (Dimes)
seised the land, but it was contended that he (Scudamore)
being a minor at the time, their title was not forfeited.
The case commenced yesterday, and the arguments,
which occupied the whole day, were resumed this
morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOMS' COURT, April 14.
(Betore the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
MOSELEY V. ALSTON.—THE BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD
JUNCTION RAILWAY.—THE NARROW V. THE BROAD
GAUGE.
Mr. Bethell—the Court having yesterday overruled
the demurrer put in by the defendant to the bill of
the plaintiffs in this case—moved to-day for an injunction
tt. restrain the defendants (the twelve direc.ors of the
Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway), from acting
as such din cters until the hearing of tit.- cause. The
facts of the case are the same as those stated to the Court
upon the demurrer, of which we have already given a
detalled account.
The motion appears likely to occupy a day or two.

S ECOND A RIES' CO I? L. April 14.
(W.fore Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
BLACKBURN V EDwARDS.

This was an action to recover th. sum of 31. 18s. The
plaintiff is a laundress, and the defendant a cab propri.,,
tor. Diftndant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. Miller app--ared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Locke
for thy: defendant.

The evidence for the plaintiff was that the work had
been done, and the charges fair and reasonable.
On the Lail of the defendant it was shown that pre-
vious monetary transactions had taken place between
the plaintiff and defendant, and that at one time the
plaintiff held 2,d. belonging to the defendant, but which
~he had sail she had paid over to defendant's father,
wtn) is dead.

To prove that the plaintiff had adni!ted that she held
th money for defendant; Mr. Ellis wns called, but his
evidence was nut conclusive, as it left the case open to
the impres,ion that the money had been paid to the
tither, whose estate was insolvent, as an advance, by
order of the son.

Mr. MILLER remarked on the impropability of a person
in such humble circumstances going to the expense of
an action if the cl.am was not just.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT.
(Before D. D. HEATH. ESQ.. Ju Ige.)
CAELE v. PEPLOW.

The plaintiff, Susan Jane Carle, sought the recovery
of the sum of 11. 6a. Bd., the balance of a bill due for
dressmaking, millinery, &c. On behalf of the defen
dant a "set off" was pleaded to part of the debt, and
non liability to the remainder.
It appeared that about Christmas last, the defendant
(Dr. Peplow) attended the husband of the plaintiff, fir
a severe illness with which he bad been attacked. and
li- which he chargad I/. 10,. 6d. To liquidate this
d.,bt, the plaintiff was engaged as dressmaker, &c., by
Mrs. Peplow. From that time (Christmas, 1846) to the
6th of March last, the plaintiff had made, altered, and
repaired various articles of wearing apparel, for which
she demanded 2/. 17s. 2c1., leaving after the deduction of
Dr. replow's bill a balance of 11. 6.i. BJ., the sum sued
for.

Mr. EDWARDS, on the part of the defendant (who was
not present), stated that in consequence of a separation
having been made between the defendant and his wile,
the former inserted an advertisement in The Morning
Sun, and other daily journals, to the effect that after that
notice, he would not be answerable for any debts con-
tracted by his wife. As corroborative evidence, Mr.
Edwards handed the Learned Judge The Morning Sun
and cnother paper, bearing the date of January 26, 1846,
containing the advertisement alluded to. He, therefore,
on behalf of his client, objected to the items inserted in
the plaintiff's bill on the 6th of March.
The Learned JUDGE explained, that if the items
named were necessaries for the maiutainance of the
wife, the defendant would be liable, notwithstanding the
public notice to the contrary. An advertisement in-
serted in any of the London daily journals would reeder
the husband in a position to dispute the debt, if the
articles incurring it, were not proved to be positive ne-
cesslries. After the appearance of the advertiseme-nt,
the husband would nut be liable for any jewellery, silks,
or other articles of an expensive nature, not usually
worn by
Peri
wife
ythelow w
sepa-
rated from her husband since the 20th of January with-
out any allowance. She Lad had all the articles named
in
apsr called,evious to separation.
and said she had been
The JUDGE then questioned the plaintiff and the last
witness as to the nature of the articles supplie d on the
6th of March, and, considering them all to tie necessaries
knowledge.
The plaintiff's bill—mostly to her husband's personal
with the exception of some ribbons, returned for the
plaintiff, for 11. ss. 4d.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS,

Subjoined are the sentenc« s, as finally amended and Co-
nfirmed, at the termination of the session, with other re-
sults and adjudi...ations. The following were ordered to
be transported beyond the seas:—for
Life—Thomas Brooks, aged 21, for manslaughter.
Fifteen years—William Ogle, 19; George Walford,
32; J. Smith, 17; Philip Reeves, 27; and G. Smith, 27.
Fourteen Years—George Yarnold, 40.
Ten Years—Julia Higgins, 20, T. Fennel!, 28; J.
Hurley, 19; Richard Williamson, 41; S. King; W.
Winn; P. Mara; J. Bird; W. Wynn, 19; Richard
Williams, 20; Alfred Twiggs, 27; James Regan, 22;
Henry Higgins, 19; William Stevens, alias Weams, 20;
James Williams, 18; and James Clifford, 21.
Seven Years—William Brown, alias Jones, 45; Fre-
derick Williamson, 32; Jrederick John Williams, 41;
William Griffin, 41; Robert Wilson, 15; John Brown,
alias Jones, 40; Frederick Debben, 19; George
11'George, 19; Henry Smith, 17; S. King, 19; H. Deal,
18; J. Harris,2l; G. Bin, 19; John Cook, 18; J. Page,
20; Henry Jones, 20; Michael Myers, 19; George
Davis, 19; J. Gardner, 22; Ernest Shultz, 19; Thomas
Lawrence, 18; J. Burnett, 20; G. White, 19; John
Upton, 21; Mary Daley, 33; Mary Smith, 19; Emily
Ellwood, 23; Mary Jones, 19; William F. Wynn, 19;
James White, 24; Charles White, 17; and Benjamin
Skiggs, 30.