The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-02 00:00:00

JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.

SMITH v. THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Ntr. WALFORD moved for an ex parte injunction
against the above-mentioned railway company, under
the following circumstances :—ln 1845 the company
obtained an Act of Parliament empowering them to ex-
tend their line of railway from Nine Elms to Hunger-
ford-bridge ; and in carrying their scheme into execu-
tion they required the land upon which stands the
plaintiff's brewery. Mr. Smith offered some resistance
to this demand ; a negotiation followed, and was ter-
minated by the cession to the company of a portion of
the property. In 1846 the company, desirous of further
extending their line, and of carrying it to London-
bridge, procured another Act, which invested them with
the usual powers for effecting their object, but the
plaintiff's land was not included in the Act, or affected
by its provisions. Last July, Mr. Smith was served
with a notice by the company, informing him that they
required his brewery, and that they intended taking
it pursuant to the powers conferred upon them by the
Act of 1845. Another and similar notice was also
served upon him in November last, and finally he
received an intimation last Saturday, that a jury
would on that day week be empannelled to assess
the value of his property, which the company proposed
taking. Mr. Smith thereupon filed his bill, stating among
other things that the land, if required at all, is not re-
quired for the purposes of the Act of 1845, but for those
of 1846, under which, as before stated, the company had
no authority whatever to interfere with the land, and
praying an injunction to restrain their threatened pro-
ceedings of next Saturday. The plaintiff also stated
that he had been informed that what the company really
wanted his land for was to form upon it a terminal station
for the several great railways whose metropolitan termini
are on the southern bank of the Thames.
His HONOUR refused the injunction, on the ground that
if the company had no authority to take the plaintiff's
property, their summoning a jury to assess its value was
an idle act, which could not injure him; and if they
had such authority he could not interfere. He gave the
plaintiff leave, however, to renew his application on Sa-
turday next, giving tha company notice of his intention.

SHERIFFS' COURT, April 1.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BErRCIIEI.L.)
STEPHENS V. DUNN.

This was art acticu broaght to recover the sum of
141. 7f. 7d., for the balance of rent for a house. The
defendant pleaded that he was not indebted, but (lid not
appear.
Mr. THOMAS appeared for the plaintiff, and said that
he should call the plaintiff's solicitor, to prove that the
defendant had occupied the premises in question for two
years, and the present claim was for a balance.
Mr. Blackinore, the plaintiff's solicitor, was called. and
proved the occupation of the premises by the defendant,
who had admitted it, and hia only excuse was that he
had left fixtures enough on the premises to pay the rent.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
SIMPSON V. CHEESEWRIGHT.—THE CLOCK AND WATCH

TRADE.
This was an action to recover the sum of 81.4 x. 6d. for
a clock and for repairs of a watch.
The defendant had paid 5/. 15s. into court as the value
of the work.

Abram Smith, a watchmaker, was called. He had
seen the dial, which was an eight-day clock. In his
opinion six guineas was a very fair charge, and if the
name had been put on it, it would have fetched 21.
more. The watch had been repaired; there had been a
new verge, balance wheel, balance wheel pinion, pivots,
and main-spring, &c. He thought the charge 11. 18s. 6d.
fair and reasonable. The watch was an old one, but it
was a better one than many new ones. He thought the
market value of the watch was about 21.
Rust, a watchmaker, gave similar evidence.
Another clock was put in for comparison. Mr. Thomas
at first objected, but ultimately said it might be shown
to the jury.
➢lr. GARRY, the defendant's attorney, said that he
should call see‘ral competent witnesses to show that the
work charged had not been done, and that the clock
was not worth more than one-half the sum claimed.
Louis Keyser, a clock-maker, was call-A
—lle said he
kept three or tour shops. lie would make clocks at
31. each if he had an order for a hundred, but 3/. 103.
would pay for a single one. The profit would then be
15s. The verge. charged ss. 6d. for, cost 2d.; perhaps
if plaintiff went to a tool shop he gave Is. for it. The
work altogether was not worth more than 16s. or 17s.
Good American clocks could be hid for 303. They came
over at s*. 6d. each, and sold at 13s.
Mr. THOMAS asked the witness whether he was not
of the Jewish persuasion?
Witness—Yes; I have that honour.
Mr. THOMAS—But you were not sworn on the Old
Testament.

Witness—Well, I did not notice it.
Mr. THomAs—Nor did you take off your hat.
Witne.s—lt is more gentlemanly and respectful to the
iudge to be uncovered.

lir. THOMAS—I have nothing further to ask you
after that.
Edward Thompson, clock-maker, of King-street,
Bloomsbury, valued the clock at 4/., and the repairs at 17s.
Laire, clock-maker, of 131 th-street, Citproad, con-
sidered 3/. los. was a fair price for .the clock, and 15s.
for the repairs would be sufficient.
Mr. THOMAS then addressed the jury, and contended
that Keyser was not entitled to credit, after the negligent
way he had gone through the form of taking the oath. j
The UNDER•SHERIFF summed up, and said that the
jury would take the witness's manner into consideration,
and also weigh his evidence, which went to very great
lengths as to value; and all the witnesses appeared to be
of opinion that the work charged for as having been done
to the watch had been done. The question, therefore,
for the jury whether the plaintiti was entitled to a
larger amount than 31. Iss.
The jury almost immediately gave a verdict for the
defendant.

-
ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Kingston, March 31.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Beforo Lord Chief Justice MINISIAN.:

BLIODEN v. BooTll.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 501.,
drawn by a person named Edmund Garbet, and pur-
porting to be accepted by the (I..,t.adant, s„,as
afterwards endorsed through a person named Phillips to
the present plaintiff. A number of pleas were put upon
the record by the defendant, but the material question
involved was, whether or not the acceptance was a
forgery ?
Mr. M. Chambers, with Mr. Willes, conducted the
case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr.
Petersdorff, appeared for the defendant.
Upon the part of the plaintiff the bill in question was
produced, and the witnesses, who had had transactions
with the defendant and were acquainted with his hand-
writing, expressed their belief that the acceptance was
his ; and one of them also stated, that upon his apply-
ing to the defendant spon the subject of the bill, he
said that it was Garnet's business, and that he had
written to him to tell him to settle it and not defend
the action.

Mr. Sergeant SHEI, on the part of the defendant, said
that the case he wasinstructed to lay before the jury
was, that the accepttnce of the bill upon which the pre-
sent action was brotght was not the writing of the de-
fendant, but that it was, in point of tact, a forgery, and
he, therefore, was lot liable upon it.
A son of the dfendant was then examined, and he
expressed a postive opinion that the acceptance to
the bill wad not tae handwriting of his father.

TII LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. BETHELL (in continuation from our Afternoon
Edition of yesterday) cited several other cases in
support of his views on this point. He would
close this series of authorities by citing a case that had
come before his Honour—he meant the case of " Wear
v. the Grand Junction Railway Company," which car-
ried him to the fullest extent as to the jurisdiction of the
Court, and landed this bill in the most perfect security.
That bill was filed by the plaintiffs not only against
other directors, but the whole corporation of the com-
pany, which was incorporated by a local Act of Parlia-
ment, to restrain them from affixing the corporate seal of
the company to an application to Parliament for the
conversion of a portion of the railway into a canal. In
the present case they were then to denounce wanton
violation on the part of the directors. In the case to
which he was referring the governing body of the com-
pany were made defendants in the suit. On that occa-
sion his Honour granted the injunction, and the directors
subsequently compromised with the company. It had
been contended by his Learned Friend (Mr. Stuart) that,
if they restrained these directors from acting, they
would put a violent end to the constitution of the company.
As one argument used by his Learned Friend on the other
side was at direct variance with the bill, so the other
argument was at variance with the Act of Parliament.
The Act permitted that the number of the directors
might be reduced to six. Here then were eighteen
directors, of whom twelve were malignants, and the
remaining six alone were those of the body who wanted
to carry into effect the views of the company. The
ground for the interference of this Court was twofold.
In the first place, the directors wanted to effect that
which was subversive of the Act of Parliament, and
they had determined, in order to achieve that, to com-
mit a further violation of that Act, having refused to go
out of office. If this latter were to be allowed, it would
tend to make the directors a governing body. The
case of the Attorney-General v. Wilson, upon which
his friends on the other side relied so much,
by no means supported their case. All the cases on the
subject went to establish the principle, that any indivi-
dual member of the company, whether of the body of
directors or of the shareholders, had a right to come to
that court and complain of the conduct of the directors,
when the latter attempted to apply the funds of the
company to any object other than that for which it was
established. So much for that part of his Learned
Friend's arguments. He came to the construction that
was put upon the word "year." He certainly admired
the ingenuity to which this word had given birth. The
word year, it was said, was used in two senses.
In one it was a year of our Lord, in the other twenty
months. In the 13th section of the Act,, if his
Honour adopted the construction of his Learned Friends,
he would be giving the world ansther year of four, eight,
twelve, or sixteen months, commencing at the expiration
of a certain term, which, however well understood in an
Act of Parliament, was certainly unknown to any chro-
nologists. He conceived that these arguments could not
be seriously met by arguments, because they proceeded
on that which was an utter annihilation of all argument
whatever, namely, that they should not take words in
their common and plain signification.
At the conclusion of the Learned Gentleman's address
he Court rose.
The case was adjourned till the 13th inst.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)