The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-05 00:00:00

ing the reins of management at Coventzgarden, in 1831,
Mr. Power went to Drury-lane, then under the manage-
ment of Captain Polhill, and appeared as Doctor.
O'Toole with increased success. Mr. Bernard's farce of
The Nervous Man, in which Power played M'Shane, to-
gether with his own drama of St. Patrick's Eve, in which
he acted Sir Morgan O'Dogherty, still increased.his fame in
a line of character now become peculiarly his own, and the
name of Power in a new farce was enough to insure its suc-
cess. During this season he obtained leave of absence to
fulfil a short engagement at the Edinburgh Theatre; and
while there a correspondence between the stage-manager
of Drury-lane Theatre, in which he was peremptorily
commanded to be in London by a particular day, which,
from his engagement with Mr. Murray, was impossible
to be complied with, induced him to decline returning at
all ; and after the conclusion of his engagement in Edin-
burgh, he came to London, appeared one night at Co-
vent-garden Theatre for a farewell benefit, in the cha-
racters of Orange Moll, in Jerrold's drama of Nell Gan,
and Sir Patriek OTlenipo; in The Irish Ambassador,
and took his departure for the United Skrtes, where he
appeared at the Park Theatre, New York, in the part pf
the Irish Ambassador and Teddy the Tiler, on the 28th
of August, 1833. His subsequent success in every pitt
of America, and, on his return, at the Theatres Royal
Covent Garden, llaymarket, and every principal theatre
in the British empire, during the last seven years, the
public are well acquainted with. Rory (More, O'Cal-
laghan, in. His Last Legs, Pat Roony, in The Omnibus,
Tim Moore, in The Irish Lion, and Paddy O'Rafferty,
in The Irishman in Italy, who can forget ? His exqui-
site brogue, sparkling eye, and never-failing spirits, are
still before us.—Observer.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 3.

PICKFORD AND OTHERS 7). THE GRAND JUNCTION RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

Sir F. Pollock and Mr. Martie 'appeared for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Erie and Mr. Cowley for the defendants.
Sir F. Poixocx, in opening the case, said, that the
questions involved in this case were of the utmost pub-
lic importance, inasmuch as it would be seen that they
immediately referred to the point as to whether the va-
rious Railway Companies should or should not, or have
or have not, a right to establish and maintain, or where
already partially established, continue to maintain a
species of monopoly in respect to the carrying and de-
livering of goods by such respective railway. The plain-
tiffs in the present instance had for many years been
celebrated as very extensive carriers both by land and by
canal, especially to the northern districts. Upon the
opening of the Grand Junction Railway, of course it
became necessary that-some change in the hitherto exist-
ing state of things should be made. It must, however,
be manifest to every man possessed of the ordinary ex-
tent of common sense, and the powers of reasoning, that
it had never been in the contemplation of the Legisla-
ture, when giving its assent to the Railway Bills, that
such enactments were to have the effect of enabling any
particular body of persons to establish one of the greatest
and most injurious monoplies with which a country could
be visited. He did not mean to say that railways were not
calculated and capablo of conferring the greatest benefits
upon the public, but he contended that to effect that ob-
ject they must be conducted on fair, equitable, and libe-
ral principles. Where a common road had been made of
course the adventurer always had an eye to deriving a
pecuniary advantage, which advantage was to be gained
by means of a toll, but it had never in any one instance
been attempted to be said that the road was to be used
by those adventurers and by nobody else. But in the
case of railroadi the Companies, it appeared, in some in-
stances were disposed to impose such a toll and such
terms as amounted not only to a protective but to a pro-
hibitory duty. By these means it was manifestly clear,
if they were legally entitled to do so, that the Railway
Companies had the power to secure to themselves the
complete monopoly of the carrying trade, not merely with
respect to the conveyance of persons but as applicable to
the transmission of goods. He would, hoivever, call the
attention of the Noble and Learned Lord on the bench
to the 31st clause of the Act of Parliament, whereby au-
thority was given to every person who might think fit to
run a locomotive or other engine on a line upon the pay-
ment of the regulated toll. That clause, it would be seen,
gave the power to any person to place an engine on a
line. But then it must be borne in mind, that in order
to obtain the requisite steam force water would be ne-
cessary ; and then there must be whit was termed a
terminus and station. Well, the Railway Companies very
naturally would, in the event of any person proposing
to act upon this particular clause, say, " Very well, it is
quite true that that clause empowers you to run your
engine on our line, but the Act does not compel- us to
allow you to use our water, or to abandon our terminus
and various situations to your use, and, therefore, the
moment you put an engine on our line we shall bring an
action against youfor trespass. " It was, consequently,
taking these things into consideration, a great question
whether this clause had not been introduced into the rail-
way Act of Parliament for a perfectly, illusory purpose.
At theperiod when the London and Birmingham and the
Grand Junction Railways•were completed, the plaintiffs,
as he had already stated, had been very large carriers,
and Messrs. Chaplin and Horne had been in an equally
extensive line of business as ooach-masters, and both
parties were invited by the Railway` Company tO avail
themselves of the rail for their carrying purposes. He
could imagine that the chief object in sending for both
parties was to prevent, if possible, that extent of com-
,
petion in reference to the carrying branch whiclfwas of-
fered by the canals: Subsequently to the attainment
of the second Act of Parliament, whereby the London
and nirmingliam and the Grand Junction Railways be-
came, as it were, for the transit goods, trucks from
London to Liverpool and ganchester one and the same
concern, an agreement had been enteretl into between
the defendants and the plaintiffs, hy which the former
were to convey goods forwarded by the latter at the re-
gular tolls, but to make them an allowance in common
with others of the trade of 20 per cent. on the amount of
their tonnage of carriage. The agreement continued in
existence until 1840, when it being proposed by the
Railway Company to connect their line with another to
Chester and Crewe, the plaintiffs began to see what a
vast and fearful monopoly that and other similar ar-
rangements might throiv into the hands of the defend-
ants, and thereupon they had procured the insertion of
some protective clauses upon the subject in.the Act.
Those clauses, however, had been lost, but the endea-
vour on the part of the plaintiffs to obtain their preser-
vation appeared to have given such offence to the Direc-
tors of the Grand Junction Railway Company, that on
the 6th of June, 1840, they had served them with a
notice that the agreement which was then in existence
between them must terminate at the expiration of three
months, namely, in the September following. On the
arrival of that period, the defendants had refused to
carry the plaintiffs goods further than Birmingham, but
had continued to convey those of Chaplin and Horne
the whole way. _ The plaintiffs had, therefore, since that
time, been compelled to keep a number of men at Bir-
mingham to unload their goods from the trucks on the
defendants' line, and to place them in trucks belonging
to the London and Birmingham Company. This could
not be accomplished without great expense. Prior
to this the Company had charged ld. per
pound for goods, but afterwards they had drawn
up a new order of charges, under which small
parcels were charged separately at-is. 6d. each, and upon
the plaintiffs sending up a bale for transmission they,
had declined to forward it unless paid for by the parcel.
The consequence had been that the greatest source of
profit—that source which .was looked to as the chief
profit arising from the carriage of parcels, whether by
coach or by waggon or by canal—the carriage of small
parcels—had been closed against them. Another result
was that if the Company did not choose to take the
word of the party who delivered the bales to them,
where any of the bales contained parcels, that those par-
cels were all for one person, it rendered it a matter of
necessity that the rejected bales must be opened. How-
ever, at length; with a view to the adoption of legal.pro-
eeedings, the plaintiff 'fad sent a bale to the terminus,
and had tendered in payment the sum of of twenty-
five shillings,, which was in accordance with the usual
charge. The Company refused to accept that amount,
and demanded 4/. Is. Bd.s being the penny per pound
extra. Now it was very doubtful whether the Act of a
Railway Company empowered them to do more than to
be carriers on their own line. It did not, at any rate,
vest them with authority to become a " Small Parcels
Delivery Company" in London—(Laughter)--that he
took to be quite blear. But they had' entered into an
arrangement with Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, it ap-
peared; to the . effect that if Chaplin and Horne would
collect and deliver goods in town' and forward such goods
to tyrn,. they would do the like with regard to the country;
13o_ parties had issued advertisements accordingly.
Chaplin and Horne were to receive 10s. per ton; which
reduced the expense to them of the transit by the railway
to 555. per ton ; 'but the Company had refused to convey
goods forithe plaintiffs under the full charge of 655. per
ton. 'thus the plaintiffs were, in addition to the ob-
stacles which were thrown in their way at Birmingham,
compelled to pay 10s. per ton more than rival parties, it
being remembered, too, that those parties had been'coach
masters, and not carriers, prior to the introduction Of
railroads. And then the Company said that the plain-
tiffs had nothing to do with any agreement they might
think proper to enter into With another establishment.
The natural effect of this conduct, as regarded the plain-
tiffs, must be their ruin. To what consequences--im-
portant consequences tn'the public—must notihe decision
of this question lead ? Suppose the plaintiffs were to be
compelled to abandon their business ? Why, then,, the
Company, in all probability, would review their tariff,
and as there would then be no competition in the market,
they would make just such charges as they might choose.
He would put a case :—Suppose his Learned Friend (Mr.
Erle) and himself had been the same circuit, and having ter-
minated their labours, were to pack up their law books to-
gether in one parcel and send them up to town, they would
of course expect to pay for one parcel. Bnt upon the plan
which had been introduced by the Grand Junction Rail-
way, as related to the plaintiffs, they would be called
upon to pay for two parcels. He contended that the
plaintiffs were entitled to receive the same allowance for
goods as was made in favour of Chaplin and Horne.
ka nt
nd fairlyadl all
—that
tt h n mt
large. a n
theyag
On
d—
v nou
would
the
nn
There was no doubt but that if railways were properly
t were
taei
nrc ee-
aogn
otherfe de r w
hand,tgrheaa tvlbewell
unless etfio
t tdhooantj
done, they would lead to a monopoly beyond even what
the mind would at first conceive.
Lord ABINGER—WouId it not be better that this
should be turned into a special case ? The questions in-
volved are certainly of the utmost importance, not
merely to the parties immediately concerned, but to the
public at large. This matter is of so much importance
that it ought to be maturely and deliberately considered.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiffs, subject to
a special case ; the parcels of the plaintiffs to be carried
by the company, at the charge of eighteenpence per pat.-
eel ; and an account of
suchparcels to be taken until the
Court above shall have delivered its judgment.
Mr. ERLE said that lie conceived he had a complete
answer to the statement made by his Learned Friend,
LOfd ADlNgglt, addzessing the jury, said there could