The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-19 00:00:00

INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS. March 18.

The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers pre-
sent were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord
Campbell.

BARRETT AND OTHERS V THE STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON

RAILWAY COMPANY.

The arguments in this part-heard appeal from the decision
of the Vice-Chancellor of England, which were commenced
on Tuesday, were resumed to-day, Mr. Smythe following Mr
Bethell on behalf of the respondents, the Stockton and Dar-
lington Railway Company. The appellants are directors and
shareholders of the Joint-Stock County of Durham Coal
Company. For the tran-it of coals sent by them by the
Stockton and Darlington Railway, and by the Clarence Rail-
way (of which the respondents are directors and share-
holders) to Port Clarence for exportation, the respondents
claimed payment at the rate of 2iltd. per ton per mile, under
provision of' their Acts of Parliament. The appellants were
unwilling to pay more than 1/2d. per ton per mile. This dispute
between the parties begnn in 1836, and it was agreed between
them that the appellants should continue to pay the former
charge, under protest, and without prejudice to their right to
recover the excess, in the event of their succeeding in an
action, which they were to bring, t,) try whether the former
or latter sum was the proper Parliamentary charge. A special
verdict was found in that action, and, upon the discussion on
it. in the Court of Common Pleas, it was decided that the sum
of 1/2d. per ton per mile fur transit of the appellants' coals
was the proper charge nnder the Acts for construction of the
said railway s. The respondents brought a writ of error on
that judgment in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and
failing in obtaining a reversal there, they brought their
writ of error in this House, the result of which was an
affirmance of thej udgment of the Court of Common Pleas.
Pecding the proceedings at law, and before the last writ of
error was brought, the appellants filed their bill in Chancery,
stating the proceedings at law, and that notwithstanding the
judgment there in favour of the appellants, the respondents
refused to refund the excess of the sums paid by the appel-
lants beyond the 1/2d. per ton per mile. The respondents
put in their answer, and alleged that of the sum before
claimed by them for tonnage ll d. was for haulage of the
coals, and other services rendered by them to the appellants
in the transit of their coals. Several orders were made in
the cause by the Vice- Chancellor, in pursuance of which the
sums constituting the excess between the established Parlia-
mentary charge. and the charge of 2id. were paid, first into
a bank, and part afterwards into court, and -vested in the
public funds to abide the decree. By the decree made in the
cause, after this House gave judgment on the writ of error,
the Vice-Chancellor ordered all sums paid by the appellants
to be paid back, under reduction not only of the id. per ton,
for the transit, but another d. per ton for haulage of the
coals; and his Honour also ordered the appellants to pay the
respondents their costs in the cause, on the ground that the
-suit was not necessary, and the filing of the bill was prema-
ture, inasmuch as all matters in dispute would have been
decided by the action if the appellants bad waited for the
final judgment in it.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Faber were beard on Tuesday for the
appellant, and Mr. Bethel! for the respondents.
Their Lordships, at the conclusion of the arguments, post-
poned their judgment.
VICE-CHANCERY COURT, March 18.
(Before the Vicz-Caanczt.Loa of EricuArry.)
JOY v. BIRCH.

The arguments in this case, which have already occupied
the Court several days, were resumed this morning. The
case, which has been many years in this Court, came before
his Honour upon further directions, and the sole question fbr
decision was, whether the purchaser of a certain estate could
be compelled under the agreement to pay interest on such
portions of the fund as had not been paid at the time he en-
tered into possession. A gentleman named Birch, so long
ago as the year 1812, contracted for the purchase of the estate
in question, called the East and West Wretham Estate, si-
tuated in Norfolk, being partly leasehold and partly freehold
property, for a sum of 95,0001. The estate was at that time
charged with several mortgages, and it was arranged be-
tween the parties that the purchaser should be permitted to
dispose of certain portions of the purchase-money in clearing
off the incumbrances, which part of the agreement was even-
tually carried into effect. It was further agreed that Mr.
Birch, upon entering, should be entitled to the rents and
profits from the preceding Michaelmas ; that the conveyances
and assurances should be prepared as speedily as possible,
and that the interest on the residue of the purchase-money
should not commence until Lady-day then next; and by a
subsidiary agreement it was provided that if the instruments
were not executed by that time, then that the interest
should commence from the time of the execution thereof.
Owing to the embarrassed state of the property, and the
claims of incumbrancers, it had been found impossible to
complete the contract, and a bill was accordingly filed for
specific performance, which came on for hearing in the year
1830, when a decree was made by his Honour directing the
performance of the former agreement, as stated by the later
one. Against this decree an appeal was entered, but the
Lord Chaneellor affirmed the judgment of his Honour. The
matter was then carried to the House of Lords, where, after
argument, their Lordships affirmed substantially the decision
of the Lord Chancellor. Since that time, the purchaser hod
continued in possession of the estate, and bad received the
rents and profits ; and the question now was, whether he
was bound to pay interest on a sum of about 9,0001., which
was the residue of the fund.

The arguments had not concluded when the Court rose.

ROLLS' CWiliT, March 18.
BILIS AND ANOTHER V. NASH AND OTHERS.

This was a bill filed against the executors of Thomas Nash,
to enforce the payment of certain losses incurred by him in
a speculation in which he had engaged with the plaintiffs.
A decree had been made in the cause in favour of the
plaintiffs in 1843, but the case was taken before the Lord
Chancellor, who varied the decree by the addi-
tion of certain parties to the suit as defendants.
The cause therefore came on for re-hearing. The facts are
these:—ln the year 1841 George Webb suggested to the
plaintiff, Hills and Burton, and to Thomas Nash, and a per•
son named Carpenter, all of whom were engaged in the corn
trace, to enter into a speculation for the purchase and sale
of English wheat. The parties agreed that the profit or
loss should be regulated by the proportion of corn which
each invested. It was further stipulated that Mr. Nash
was not to be one of the parties who were either to purchase
or sell.

The plaintiff; held 15,000 quarters of wheat, Webb
.5,000, Nash 2,500, Carpenter 20,000, and a person
named Shepherd. who had been introduced into the
speculation, 2,500. In 1840 the plaintiffs and Carpenter
purchased a large quantity of wheat on a joint account, awl
at the end of the year the affairs were wound up, when it was
found that there was a loss of 18,1801. 18s. 6d. Carpenter
came to a settlement with the plaintiffs on the ascertained
loss sustained. Shepherd had also settled his portion of the
loss. Webb, not being in circumstances to enable him to
liquidate his moiety of the loss, was released
from all liabilities. Nash died in 1841, and by his will ap-
pointed the defendants in this suit his executors, who, not
finding in the books of the testator any satisfactory evidence
of his being a party to the agreement in question, declined
to make any payment on his account until ample proofs were
given that such was the case. 11, vbb and Shepherd, who
were parties in the original record, were added to the suit.
The case was not conclude;i when the Court rose.

SHERIFFS' COURT; Ma- ch 19.
( Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELI..)
♦BSENCE OF ATTORNEYS AND WITNESSES.
This morning there was the same ground of complaint
which has existed for some time past a the absence of the
parties at the appointed time, and several causes were either
struck out of the list or were placed at the bottom.

SMITH V. MOORE.

This was an action brought to recover compensation for
damage done to an omnibus belonging to the plaintiff, an
omnibus proprietor.
The defendant pleaded that he was not guilty of the
negligence imputed to him, but no one attended on his behalf:
Mr. WILDa stated the case on the part of the plaintiff,
from which it appeared, that in December last the plaintiff
was driving along the Mile-end-road, when the accident
occurred, through the defendant's cart being on the wrong
side of the road. The actual damage to the omnibus was
about 101, and as much more was claimed for the loss of time.

- - -
On the 'witnesses being called, however, they were no.
present.

The UNDER-SHERIFF said that a verdict for nominal
damages must be taken, uuless the witnesses arrived before
the jury were dismissed.

LLOYD V. BEKKOVITZ.

This was an action to recover the sum of 8/. ss. for one
quarter's rent of a house in Nelson-square, Blackfriars-road.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. BALLANTINE, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that
this was the third time the cause had come before the Court,
as two previous verdicts in favour cf the plaintiff had been
set aside ; the facts, however, appeared to him to be very
simple. the plaintiff was the landlord of the house for which
the rent- was claimed, and the defendant, who is a Polish
gentleman, took the house on an agreement for three years,
but shortly after the expiration of the first quarter he gave
up the key, but had not paid any rent; the plaintiff had ac-
cepted the key, which however did not preclude him from
recovering the rent.
Nixon, a process server, was called and proved that he
took a key of defendant's wife, but he could not identify it;
he Lad tried a key in the door and it opened it, but he could
not say that the one produced was the one.
Mary Wood was called, but could not speak positively to
the key. Defendant was not now in possession.
The defendant's witnesses were called, but did not answer.
The defendant's ArroftfiEy said that he had a good defence
to the action on the merits, but of course could not goon with
the case in the absence of his witnesses.
A verdict was then given for the amount claimed.
From what transpired on the previous occasion it was ex-
pected that the defence would be that plaintiff had in-
duced the wife to give up the key, but that the defendant
was not bound by her act. It was also urged that the iden-
tical key was not produced.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Dorchester, March 16.
CROWN COURT.—( Before Mr. Justice Wiet.tasts.)
Robert Bridge, John Fetherstone, Samuel Moatyn, William
Barnes, William Trevelian, Hiram Vivian, Samuel Palmer,
George Guy, Richard Martin, and Richard Rees were in-
dicted, and the indictment charged them with assembling in
a tumultuous manner, and with force and arms meking an
affray to the terror and and disturbance of her Majesty's
subjects, wherein one James Bushrod, together with Ruth,
his wife, and Sarah Ann, his daughter, were assaulted, beaten,
and abused, and at the same time in and upon George
Groves, Jethro Waters, and Thomas Cake, constables, assault•.
ing and beating them, the said constables being then in the
execution of their duty at Upway.
Mr. Stock was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. Fitz-
herbert defended the prisoners.
The prisoners are what are termed " navigators," and were
employed upon the Wilts, Someraet, and Weymouth Rail-
way at Upway, between Dorchester, and Weymouth. On
Monday, the 18tn. of January last, some of the prisoners
went to a public-house at Upway, kept by Bushrod. In the
course of the evening the rest of the prisoners came to that
house. After drinking some beer a quarrel arose among
the men, and went on till it came to what was termed a
desperate row. They knocked down some of the posts which
supported the beams of the tap-room. This disturbance con-
tinued until some constables arrived, who recommended them
to be quiet end enjoy themselves. They, however broke the
table and drove the constables out. of the house. The pri-
sou:•r Bridge dragged Bushrod out of the house, knocked him
down, and kicked and beat him until he was rendered insen.
slide. Upon coining to himself he found that his passage
door had been broken, and the men were then endeavouring
to force the parlour door. His wife arld daughter were lying
on the ground in a senseless state. His daughter's cheek was
severely cut. Theme then was a clamour for more beer. He
was terrified, and therefore he drew some, but the men broke
all the mugs. Bushrod at length contrived to lock up his
bar and left the premises. lie returned in about an hour;
most of the prisoners bad gone away. The constables, who
had been driven out of the house, had now procured further
assistance and came to the spot. Two of the prisoners were
then lying in the tap-room asleep, and they were imme-
diately taken into custody, and the other prisoners were ap-
prehended
on the following day. When the constables were
in pursuit of the prisoners Bridge threw stones at them, with
a view of driving the constables away so that they might not
be taken. Bridge had been heard to lay that he would have'
a row at Bushrod s. One circumstance is particularly worthy