The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-07 00:00:00

THE gIYI4I, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 7, 1647

RAILWAY COMMITITES,

James Graham in the chair.
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN (POR-
TOBELLO AND 'WOLVERHAMPTON
BRANCH). _ _

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
GROUP V.
IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
The Committee met at twelve o'clock; Lord Harry Vane
in the chair.

The Committee were engaged the whole of the day with
the general evidence in favour of this line. The case closed
before the rising of the Committee.
The Committee, however, adjourned without giving their
decision.

WINDSOZ.
Evidence was continued against this railway from Slough
to Windsor.

Mr. HoPs, on the case being closed, then addressed the
Committee against the Bill.
Mr. AUSTIN replied on behalf of the Great Western Com-
pany, the promoters of the Bill.
The room was then cleared for the consideration of the
preambles of the following Bills :
Great Western (Branches to West London Railway, &c.)
Great Western (Branches to Egham, Staines, &c.)
Windsor Railway.
Windsor, Staines, and South-Western (Richmond to
Windsor).
Windsor, Staines, and South-Western (Staines to Ascot, &c).
The Ctialaatax, when parties were re-admitted, said the
Committee had unanimously decided that the preamble of
the Great Western (Branches to West London, &c.) was
proved; the preamble of the Great Western (Branches to
Egham, Staines, &c.) was not proved ; the preamble of the
Windsor Railway not proved; the preamble of the Windsor,
Staines, and South-Western (Richmond to Windsor) was
proved; the preamble of the Windsor, Staines, and South-
Western (Staines to Ascot, &c.), proved only for the Staines
and Egham and Farnborough branch, and not proved for the
Wokingham branch.
The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow.

GROUP VI.
EZETER, 'YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER.
The Committee was occupied during the whole of the day
in the cross-examination of Mr. Locke.

GROUP XVIII.
CNELTENN.ADI AND TienvG.

The Committee on this group met this morning at twelve
o'clock ; the Earl of Lincoln in the chair.
Before proceeding to the business of the day,
The CHAIRMAN intimated that it was the impression of
the Committee that an unnecessary number of witnesses had
been adduced on the Cheltenham and Oxford branch, and,
on reference to his book, he found that not less than ninety-
seven witnesses were engaged for both sides of the question.
Without meaning in the slightest degree to interfere with
the mode in which the counsel might think proper to con-
duct their case, he, however, thought that a greater discri-
mination might be used in the selection of the witnesses.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 6.
The House sat to-day at ten o'clock to hear English and
Scotch appeals. The Peers present were the Lord Chan.
cellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Earl of
Clancarty.

' Mr. HILDTCARD, who appears for the narrow gauge line,
said that, whilst not forgetting the intimation which had
been thrown out by his Lordship, he should be eareful to do
his duty to his clients. He would first make a few observa-
tions on the line which had lately been submitted to the
Committee, and then state the merits of the Cheltenham and
Tring line; and he would first remark that Gloucester was
the real point Irons which the traffic would start, although
the Bill before the Committee only sought powers to snake a
line from Cheltenham. The first object worthy of the notice
of the Committee was the different summits which had to
be reached by the Great Western line and the proposed line
of that company. According to Mr. Brunel's statement the
summit of the new line would be at least two hundred feet
higher than the other, while the gradients, as compared with
the project of the North-Western Company, would be very
materially heavier. The new line was intended to separate
from the existing line at Swindon, and again met it at Glou-
cester, and, in the course of its progress, it would have to
surmount one of one in sixty, and which would continue
for four miles, and another, of one in a hundred, which con-
tinued for two miles. On the other hand, upon the Chelten-
ham and Tring line the maximu:n gradient would be
only one in sixty, which was only about three-quarters
of a mils in length, and there were only two others
of any consequence, one which was one in seventy, and the
ctlnge. one in seventy-five. Now, he was prepared to shear that
the summit to ba surmounted on the Cheltenham and Oxford
line would be not 200, but 217 feet above the summit of the
old line. The only merit which the Great Western Com-
pany therefore assumed for their project, was that the dis-
tanbe between Gloucester and London would be shortened
by five miles, but this, he thought, would be fairly met by
the greater facility which the line of the North-Western
Company afforded. And, even did he not possess that argu-
ment, he might still cite the evidence of Mr. Brunel himself,
given in 1836, when the Birmingham and Gloucester Com-
pany obtained their Act, and from that evidence it was seen
that it was Mr. Brunel's opinion that the passengers from
Gloucester would still find their way to London by Tring,
and not by Oxford. In addition to that, there would be the
great difficulty of crowding a traffic on a line to which it did
not legitimately belong, and the further disadvantage of a
bad terminus in London •, while, on the other hand, there
would be on the Cheltenham and Tring line a freer transit
and an admirable terminus. Then it would be recollected
that there were grave considerations with regard to Chelten-
ham, though upon that he would not touch except just to
refer to it, for counsel had been specially instructed by the
inhabitants of the town to show the detriment which would
be suffered from bringing the railway quite through the heart
of it. With respect to the plea that the Great Western
Company would be enabled to furnish accommodation to the
people of the district at a lower rate, by the Railway
Consolidation Act, there was already a power given to that
effect; so that, in fact, one million of money would be spent
for no earthly benefit whatever. Mr. Talbot, in opening for
the other side,had stated that the Great Western line was the
better line of the two, but on what ground he could make
such a assertion hel(Mr. Hildyard) could not possibly con-
ceive, for the real truth was that the two opposing lines
would accommodate the country much in the same way ; and,
in truth, if the Great Western were to consult their own in-
terest, they would never construct this line at all. They had
been enabled to extend their main lines down to the Land's
End, and up as- far as Fishguard, why, then, if it was their
interest to construct this line, had they not made it before?
Mr. Brunel had, in 1836 and 1837, allowed that railway ac-
commodation was much needed between Cheltenham and
Oxford, and yet he left it until 1845 before he took any
steps to provide it, and then he allowed that lie was
only prompted to devise a line by other parties
being in the field. On the contrary, if the Great
Western Company had no interest whatever, the North
Western Company had every interest; for it so fell in with
the whole of the property already established that they had
every inducement, not only to make the line, but to work it
efficiently, for it was fully intended to lay down a double line
of rails to Blackwall all the way from Euston-square; so
that in fact the whole of London would be opened
up to the traffic of the western counties. Counsel,
witnesses, and very possibly Committees also, had been too
much in the habit of looking upon London as a point, but it
should be recollected that London was a vast district which
contained ups ards of 2,000,000 of inhabitants, and a district
which might be split up into eight or ten towns, each of
which would be larger than the largest city be-
side in this country. Now, leaving out a portion of the
town about Paddington, with its five hundred thousand
inhabitants, was it to be supposed that the remainder
should be left to the inconvenience of having a terminus two
miles further off than was necessary? He did not wish to
put a toll-bar across the railway at Swindon, but what
would be said if the Manchester Wiilway were to stop five
miles short of its destination? As to the allegation that the
Cheltenham and Tring line was longer, he would show by
evidence that this was felt practically to be no inconvenience,
for it was a fact that the Peterborough traffic, which was
conveyed to London pretty equally by the Eastern Counties
and the Midland Counties lines, although the latter was ten
miles and a half further, for that distance sunk into insigni-
ficance when the convenience of the London terminus came
into consideration. Then as to the fares for the 109 miles,
which would be the distance by the North-Western project,
the Great Western Company had, by their Bill, a power to
charge for a first-class passenger 11. Ils. 9d., and they did
really charge for that distance 1/. 4s. Ild. ; while the
charges, according to the North-Western rates, for the
first class would be 195., and by the second class 14s. 34d.;
while on the sec aid-class fares of the Great Western
company there was no limit in their Act. After recapitulat-
ing the several point?, the Learned Counsel adduced the
evidence of Mr. Brunel and Mr. Saunders to show that such
a healthy competition would be brought about by the con-
gso tt,uctshtifeoonrtwoothhafoseletepehrouetfba narrow gauge line as must prove advan ta -
litinch.et the
districtie
merits
o decisionfotvtah
loeefs twota
as
Commissionersbeing
ges
appropriated
ha dpointed
pointed '
to the narrow gauge, but the Act was so ambiguous in its
terms that it was easy to say that a broad gauge line might
be made there, but the whole spirit of the Act was in reality
opposed to that construction.
The Learned Counsel then went through the peculiar fea-
tures of the line, but as they are to be brought out specifi-
eally by the witnesses, it would be useless to state them
hers.

ii;;;IETL;;;;;bOut to address there Lordships this
morning on behalf of the respondents, when
The LOAD CIiANCELLOR intimated that their Lordships
thought it unnecessary to hear the Learned Gentleman.
The Learned Lord, after going through the facts of the case,
recommended their Lordships to affirm the judgment of the
Court below with costs.

Lord BROUGHAM and Lord CAMPBELL agreed with the
opinion expressed by the Learned Lord on the Woolsack.
Judgment of the Court below affirmed, with costs.
WOOD V. YOUNG.

Their Lordships were occupied the remainder of the morn-
ing with the arguments in this case, which came before them
upon appeal against an interlocutor of the Lords of the first
division of the Court of Session, by which they disallowed a
bill of exceptions taken by the appellants to a judgment of
Lord Robertson pronounced in the course of a jury trial,
whereby his Lordship sustained an objection taken by the
respondent to a witness tendered by the appellant on the
ground of interest.

ROLLS COURT, May 6.
MARSHALL V. LYSTES.

This cause came on for further directions on the Master's
report. It appeared that Sir Thomas Elmsley Croft married
a ward of Chancery, and upon her attaining her twenty-first
year, a marriage settlement was executed, by which it was
covenanted that 5,000/. should be charged on the estate for
his wife, and that a sum of 10,0001. should be accumulated
as a provision ior the younger children. It appeared that
Lady Croft married twice after the death of Sir Thomas
Croft, and that one dauphter by her first marriage, had
also married. The plaintiff was the trustee to the marriage
settlement. There was nothing of any public interest
in the cause, which was ordered to stand over (after some
of the arguments had been heard) till the third day of next
term.

BAIL COURT, May 6.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. SPINES.
Mr. PALMER said his Lordship would recollect that, in
this case, the defendant, who was a highly respectable master
builder resident in Norwich, had been committed to gaol to
take his trial at the next assizes on a charge of manslaughter,
in having caused the death of a female, aged 87 years, by
driving a cart over her, on his return from a neighbouring
market. A writ of certiorari had been already granted to
bring up the depositions taken before the coroner, and a rule
calling upon the magistrates to admit Mr. Spinks to bail in
the country. The depositions were now in court.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGEIS there any opposition to your
applies Lion
Mr. PALMER—No, my Lord.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE wished to have the evidence taken
before the coroner handed up to him. Having perused it, he
said that it appeared that the prisoner was driving very fast,
and that he did not stop after the accident occurred.

Mr. PALmEn said, that the prisoner was not driving at the
rate of six miles an hour.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE then directed that the prisoner
should be admitted to bail, himself i❑ the sum of 501., and
to find four sureties of 151. each, to take her trial at the next
Norfolk assizes.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Several motions of unimportant interest were disposed of
during the morning.
A long discussion arose as to a point of practice under the
new rules which have been issued, judgment upon which
has been for the present deferred.
The Court then took up the new trial paper, with which it
was occupied for the rest of the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court was occupied all day in hearing motions, and
determining arguments as to points of practice, but nothing
important came under the notice of the Court.

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 5.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuRcHELL.)

DiDCOCK V. THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY

COMPANY.

In this case, Mr. 11. Badcock, a manufacturing chemist
at Bow-common, near Limehouse, claimed compensation
from the Blackwell Company for his premises, which
they required in the extension of the line of railway.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Lush were for the claimant, and
Mr. Bovill and Mr. I'hippson for the company.
The case occupied the whole day. It appeared that
the claimant had asked 4501. and had been offered 1141.
by the company, exclusive of the fixtures and other
matters, which were to be taken at a valuation. The
evidence went to show that in 1843 Badcock was dis-
charged as an insolvent debtor; in 1844 he obtained a
21 years' lease of the premises now in his occupation, and
that he had since carried on the business. Several wit-
nesses were culled with the view of showing the value.
It vi as stated that since the passing of the New Building
Act it was difficult to obtain premises to carry on certain
occupati,ins, including the business in which the claimant
was engaged.
Mr. BoviLL addressed the jury for the company, but
called no witnesses. Ile contended that the offer of the
company, which was exclusive of fixtures, was a very,
liberal compensation to the claimant.
The Learned UNDEIt• SHERIFF summed up the evidence,
and the jury assessed the compensation at 4001.
May 6.
(Before Ali. Under-Sheriff BUM:HELL.)
latisXS V. MI:Kt.:It.
This was an aebassiourecover damages for an illegal distress.
The detendank iCbit is a broker and auctioneer, suffered
judgment to go by
Mr. HAWKINS appeared for the plaintiff(a Capt. Ifobli?9,
who had occupied a beer-shop called the " Pleasure Boat, in
the Lea-bridge-road. The Learned Counsel said that the
.plaintiff, having occupied the house during the summer
season of 1845, shut up the place in October of that
year for the winter, as no "boating" was going
on. At that time he left several boats in the
dock, together with chairs, tables, and the ordinary fixtures

the neighbouring counties the advantages of lime and coal,
from which they were at present debarred, and from the want
of which they *offered so severely.
Mr. William Sewn, cattle dealer, St. Boswell's, gave evi-
dence as to the great accommodation which the opening of
the Hawick and Carlisle continuation of the North British
line would give to the dealers in his neighbourhood, by les-
sening the cost of transit to the great markets of the
north of England, namely, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds,
and Newcastle. He was obliged at present to send his
stock for the former markets round by Glasgow, or through
Hawick to Annan, there to be shipped. This mode of con-
veyance necessarily involved a great cost, and much loss,
from the over-fatigue to the cattle and the detention at the
ports before they could be got to sea.
Mr. Wallbank, cattle-dealer, Keighley, West Riding of
Yorkshire, said that if the railway from Hawick to Carlisle
were finished, he should at once take his cattle to the latter
town, and thence on to the markets of the West Riding by
the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway.
Mr. Mark Tumbrill, miller, Melrose, gave evidence in fa-
vour of the line, as tending to increase the consumption 4
grain in the district. There were two distillers at Lang-
holm, who consumed large quantities, but they were unable
to supply the orders they received from the country between
Hawick and Carlisle, because they could not get carts to
convey the produce to its destination. If the railway were
completed this objection would be done away with.
Mr. J. D. Carr, miller and baker, Carlisle, proved that he
could get his grain cheaper in the markets around Kelso if
this line were completed to Carlisle, instead of purchasing it
at Newcastle, and bringing it down by the Newcastle and
Carlisle Railway. He paid the latter railway about 6001. per
annum for carriage.
Mr. Walter Wilson, manufacturer, Hawick, spoke to the
advantage which the opening of the line would give to
Hawick, as giving a ready means by which they might get
their wool, at the same time affording a ready transit for the
exported article to the southern markets.. It would also
give them a ready access to the Canobie pits, and thus lessen
the prise of coal in the country.
Mr. John Laing, manufacturer, Hawick, corroborated the
preceding evidence.
Mr. Ronald, woolbroker, Liverpool, said that he had found
it exceedingly difficult to get his wool to llawick and Gala-
shiels; the market had 'therefore not been so profitable as it
would be if there had been railway communication.
Mr. Robert Gill, manufacturer, Galashiels, spoke to the
increased manufactures of that town, and the necessity for a
communication between the centre of these manufactures
and the English markets.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

THE TAFF VALE EANLWAY COMPANY V. NIXON.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were ap-
pointed to be resumed to-day. fhe case came before their
Lordships upon appeal from the decree of the Vice-Chan-
cellor of England. The following are the facts of the case
out of which the appeal arises :
Mr. W. Nixon was a railway contractor, and had under-
taken part of the works of the Taff Vale Railway for that
company for the sum of 7,3954, subject to deduction or in-
crease proportioned to the work to be done. Eventually.
becoming short of cash to carry out his contract, he applied
to David Storm, another railroad contractor, for assistance,
which was accorded, upon an agreement and a power of at-
torney to Storm, appointing him his superintendent and
director of these works till they should be completed, and
his attorney to demand and have of the company all sums
of money which should become due to Nixon from the coin-
pany under the contract, with an allowance of 5/. per cent.
on all advances. These circumstances were formally notified
to the Taff Vale Railway Company on the Bth of December,
1838. The works were carried out and completed, partly
under a new contract, when Nixon and Storm became
joint contractors with the company ; Nixon having
the management of the working part, Storm trans-
actine,,, all money matters with the company, who con.
tinned to pay him various sums on account of work done.
In December, 1840, Storm became bankrupt, and four of the
respondents became his assignees. Nixon filed his bill
against the Taff Railway Company and the assignees of
Storm, stating that he and Storm had received 9,2061. on
the contract, but that he had not received any part of 7.324/.
since become payable for work done by the Company; that
be had, on finding, on the 16th December, 1840, that Storm
was embarrassed in circumstances, given notice to the Com-
pany not to pay him any more money on account of the
contract; and also to render him an account of all moneys
paid since April 11, in respect of the contract. The Com-
pany asserted that a larger sum than the 9,2361. had been
paid to Nixon, or Storm, or the assignees of the latter since
his bankruptcy, and that little remained due on account of
the contract. This Nixon denied, or else alleged that any
such greater sum was paid in their own wrong, and after
notice not to pay anything more to Storm. The Company
put in their answer to this bill, denying they had any con-
nexion or privity with the accounts between Nixon and
Storm ; nor were those parties, or any one or more in their
right entitled to institute a suit in equity against
the appellants in respect of the alleged contract.
The Vice-Chancellor of England, upon hearing the case,
thought there was nothing to take this case out of the
ordinary one of a person making a mortgage of his debt, and
ordered that it should be referred to the Master to see what
sum was due to Nixon, and what works were done by him
under the contract, as well extra as those therein specified ;
further directions and costs being reserved. And from this
decree the present appeal was brought.
Sir F. KELLY and Mr. STUART were heard on Monday
last on behalf of the appellants, contending that what had
taken place was, at the utmost, a mere legal liability, under
a contract, and furnished no ground for equitable relief. It
was against all principle of equity that because two joint
contractors or partners had a dispute as to their own ac-
counts, their debtors should be thereby rendered liable to be
made defendants in a suit in equity to settle partnership dis-
putes ; and finally, that though an award, by desire of the
partners had been made by Mr. Robert Stephenson, that re-
ference had not been impugned by the bill in Chancery, nor
had the decree of the Vice. Chancellor made any provision as
to the reference and award.