The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-20 00:00:00

MORRIS V. THE DUKE OF NORFOLK.

This was an action brought by the clergyman of a
parish in Norfolk to set aside an alleged modus—it has
been very frequently before the Court. The plaintiff
succeeded.

Mr. B. ANDREWS now moved for a rule to show cause
why the defendant should not pay the costs of the action,
which from the spirit in which the plaintiff had been
met amounted to upwards of 1,400/.—Rule granted.
The whole morning was occupied with motions of a
technical nature. No features of public interest pre-
sented themselves. Their Lordships rose at two o'clock,
for the purpose of meeting the other Judges for the con-
sideration of some Crown cases reserved during the late
Assizes.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE "SUSSEX AGRICUL-
TURAL EXPRESS."-THE QUEEN V. BAXTER.
_ _ __

Mr. PLATT moved for a rule, calling upon the defen-
dant, Mr. Baxter, the proprietor of the Sussex Agricul-
tural Express, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him for the publication of a
libellous paragraph, reflecting on one of the Members for
Lewes, and imputing to him that he had been
guilty of bribery and corruption at the late election
for that borough. Mr. Harford, in his affidavit,
denied on oath all the allegations made against him, and
sw&Q distinctly that he had not bribed any of the elec-
tors, directly or indirectly—that he had never given any
directions to any other person to do so, nor did he be-
lieve that any of his agents, or any member of his
Committee had been guilty of bribery and corruption.
Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. THE GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY.

Mr. WATSON, on behalf of a gentleman named Ogden,
appeared for a rule calling upon the Great North of Eng-
land Railway Company to show cause why they should
not immediately proceed to set out the Railway from
Darlington to Newcastle. This was an application si-
milar to the one which had been made in this Court in
the case of the Eastern Counties Railway, in which case
the rule, after argument in the other Court, had been
made absolute, a mandamus had gone down which on the
return had been quashed, on the ground of insufficiency.
In the year 1836, an Act of Parliament had been ob-
tained by the Great North of England Railway Com-
pany, for the making of a railway from Gateshead,
opposite the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to Beworth-
on-the-Tees, thus connecting the river Tees by railway
with the town of Newcastle. It was also the intention
of the Company to carry a railway from the river Tees
to the city of York, and in the next Session of Parlia-
ment an Act had been obtained for carrying the railway
from the Tees to York. The first had been obtained in
1836; they immediately proceeded to complete the rail-
way from the City of York to the Tees, and that portion
of the line was now open. They also, under their first
Act proceeded to complete the original railway from the
river Tees to Darlington, a distance of about four miles
out of 36. Whether this extension to Darlington enabled
them to fetch coals from West Auckland, in the West
Riding of Yorkshire, he could not then stop to inquire,
but with the exception of buying some small portions of
property they had not done anything for the completion
of the line from Darlington to Newcastle. He thought
that he had already shown sufficient to entitle him to his
rule; but lately a meeting of the Company had been held,
at which a plan had been proposed for abandoning the
original line, and for the adoption of another line. Close
to the city of Durham, where the original line would
have passed, they would, according to the Act of Par-
liament, have had to carry an immense embankment
across Shimcliff Valley, the expense attending which
had probably been the cause of their desiring
to abandon the original line. Mr. Ogden, on
whose behalf he applied, possessed property close to
what would have been the Durham station, and it was
now proposed to carry the railway from Darlington to
Newcastle, by carrying the line four or five miles from
Durham through a place called Thistleton Gap, and
then deviating to the right to join the Durham Junction
Railway, which railway joined the Stanhope and Tyne
Railway, which went to Shields and joined the Brandling
Junction Railway, and thus the railway was carried
from Darlington to Newcastle by a devious course, and
by joining three railways, on which loads of coal were
constantly being carried, thus adding considerably
to the danger of the passengers travelling on the
railway. All that was deficient in the Eastern
Counties case was present here. The public
had given this Company certain privileges, and that
Company had entered into a contract with the public to
complete the line. They had agreed to carry the rail-
way close to Durham ; they now proposed to pass at a
considerable distance from Durham.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—They must get an Act of
Parliament to make the deviation, and then the present
Act will be repealed, and your rule will fall to the
ground. Is this the proper place to fight the question?
Mr. WATSON submitted that they could not speculate on
what Parliament might do ; besides the Company might
complete the line for five or six miles to join the Durham
Junction, and they would not want any Act of Parliament.
The Company had obtained an Act, giving them longer
time, but the additional time would expire in two years;
and his affidavit showed that unless they immediately
proceeded to take steps for the completion of the line, it
would not be completed in time.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Does the line pass through
the property of your client ?
Mr. WATSON—No, myy Lord,ou mayclo tasetkoe your it.
Mr. Justicerule
; but
l'ArrEsoN