The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, J.IN. 21.
The Court was occupied during the catty part of the
morning in bearing motions, none of which were of any
public interest.

I WO UR T OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JAN. 21.
( Sittings in Banco. )
THE QUEEN V. TIIE BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY
COMPANY.
Mr. WAKLEY moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to bring up
an indictment which had been preferred against the Bir-
mingham and Gloucester Railway Company, at the Sum-
mer Assizes for the county of Worcester. One of the Die
rectors had been summoned to appear, and not appearing a
distringas had been issued, and some of the property of
the Company had been seized. The indictment was, he
understood, for not baying complied with an order of Ses-
sions. in making a hedge pursuant to the provisions of the
Act of Parliament, and the Slieriff having seized some of
the defendants' property, still retained possession of it.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Don't you know what the in-
dictment was for ?
Mr. WAKLEY—Not exactly, my Lord.
Mr. Justice Ltreeeneen—You said you understood it
to be for disobeying an order of Sessions ?
Mr. WAKLEY—Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE —1 never heard of such a thing
before.
Mr. WAKLEY—At the last assizes of Worcester, some
of the property of the Company having been distrained, he
( Mr. Waklcy)had appeared and offered toplcad, but the clerk
of the indictments said he could not receive his plea, and on
applying to Mr. Baron Parke he said he did not know hew
the defendants were to proceed, but not in that Court at
all events. He (Mr. Wakley) suggested whether the
indictment was not a nullity, and Mr. Baron Parke ex-
pressed an opinion upon it ; but at the same time recom-
mended him to remove the indictment by certiorari into
the Court of Queen's Bench. All he was desirous of was
to get rid of the indictment, and it was somewhat difficult
to say what caurse he ought to adopt.
Mr. „Justice LITTLEDALE—Does your affidavit state
what you believe to be the object of the indictment ?
Mr. WAKLEY had applied for a copy of the indict-
ment, but could not obtain it ; but he was himself perso-
nally aware of the fact.
The COURT granted a rule absolute for a certiorari.
THE QUEEN V. WHITEHEAD.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared to show cause
against a rule which called upon the defendant to show
cause why an information in the nature of a quo warranto
should not be issued, directed to him and calling upon
him to show by what authority he exercised the office of
Councillor of the -North West Ward of the borough of
Leeds. The electiOo took place on the 2d Nov. last, and
the two candidates were Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Skelton.
It was a very close rub, the one having polled 315, and
the other 316. According to the rule laid down in the
Liverpool case, as he could not attach the votes given is
favour of Mr. Skelton, ire should confine himself to a state-
ment of what was the principal question between the
parties. The borough was divided into several wards, and,
by an Act passed in the Ist, Victoria, chap. 78, sec. 6, the
Burgess Roll of the former year was to remain in force.
On that roll there were several burgesses who had pre-
mises in more than one of the wards—they were registered
in each of the wards, and several of those persons voted
for Mr. Skelton, and their votes were disallowed on the
ground, amongst others, that in the preceding year they
had voted in other wards. The great question, therefore,
would be whether those votes should be allowed or dis-
allowed. If Mr. Skelton was entitled to them he would
have the majority in his favour, but there were two grounds
on which he would show to the Court that these votes ought
to be disallowed. When the rule was moved, for Mr. Justice
Patteson was of opinion that these votes should never have
been allowed at all. The 9th section gave the right of
voting to those only who had been duly enrolled, but the
parties in the present case being enrolled in two wards,
could not be said to be duly enrolled, because by the 4411
section it was provided that at the time of enrolment they
should haze made their election as to what ward they
should be enrolled in. The words were " he shall be en-
titled to vote in one, but not in more than one." He was
to make his election in whatever way his political views
pointed out. Now, he contended, that these voters had
made their election by voting in another ward the preced-
ing year, so that if they had the right of voting at all it
should have been exercised in another word. The question
was one deserving toe serious consideration of the Court,
as the votes had been received on the 2.1 of November,
and in a scrutiny, before the declaration of the numbers
on the 4th, the returning officer had struck them out,
It appeared to him that it was most essential that the return-
ing officer should have the power to scrutinies what votes
were good and what votes bad.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—That should be done when the
votes are tendered.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said had they argued that, at
the time the votes were tendered it could not be known
whether they were duly enrolled, or whether they had voted
is another ward or not.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—That may be a good reason for
coming here, but it seems to me that under the Act of
Parliament, the Returning Officer is to sum up the votes
and to declare who is elected, but to allow him to object
to votes, and say which he may strike off or which retain,
is a monstrous thing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was sorry to say* that abuses
said to prevail on the other side of the Channel, had been
ascertained to exist in England, and iu the present case
there had been a clear case of personation, but after the
opinion expressed by the Court he would not offer any
further arguments against the motion.—Rule absolute.
THE QUEEN V. YORK•
Sir F. Pote.oce appeared in this ease to show cause
against a rule which had been obtained calling upon the
defendant, Wm. York, to show cause why a quo warranto
should not be exhibited against him to show by what au-
thority he exercised the office of Councillor of the borough
of Bridgewater. The ground on which the rule had been
obtained was, that at the time of his election he was inte-
rested in- a contract, being the lessee of certain lands be-
longing to the Corporation. By the 28th section of the
Municipal Act, any person holding any place or office of
profit, or who by himself or his partner was directly
or indirectly interested in any contract or employ-
ment with the Corporation, was disqualified from
holding the office of Councillor ; that, in his opinion,
merely referred to any employment under the Corporation,
but could not be said to extend to the case of a lease.
The COURT thought the case was one which would be
beat met by putting it into a special case.
PICKFORD V. TIIE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a rule calling upon the defendants to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding
them to charge at all times the same rates autho-
rized by the Act, for the carriage of goods
and merchandise, or for the use of steam power or
carriages supplied to the defendants, and tee charge the
same rate per ton per mile for all descriptions of goods,
and not to reduce or advance the same in favour of any
particular company, or persons travelling on or using the
line.
Mr. Ckesweet now appeared to show cause against
the rule. The terms followed precisely the 27th section
of the Act of Parliament, and it did not assign either that
the defendants had done anything contrary to it, or had
neglected or refused to comply with it. He apprehended
that such a mandamus as that could not be sustained, be-
cause there had been no demand 'rondo of the Company to
do any specific thing, for the omission of which they made
that complaint to the Court.. Now, if the application
was good for anything, they might return that they had
complied with the 27th section of the Act.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—The question may not have
been properly brought, but we have granted mandamuses
under similar circumstances against canals.
Mr. CRESSWELL submitted that in such cases it had been
shown that the rates were different at different locks, and
that a party was thereby aggrieved. In the present case
the Company were required to do what they had always
done, Joseph Heyworth, the clerk of Pickford and Co.,

made an affidavit to the effect that he had waited upon the
manager of the Grand Junction Railway to know whether
he would allow the trucks of that Com,-inv, after convo•
the goods of Vickfo, c and Co. al..n.g -In I ~3a
line, to be transferred to the London and Birmingham
line, to be thence conveyed to London, so that the goods
might not be taken off the trucks till they reached Lon.
don. That was refused, and then the affidavit set out
that a letter was delivered by Heyworth to the Manager,
stating that they would send their goods by the Grand
Junction Railway as usual, but would send their
own mPn to load and unload them. These were.
the only demands that had been made of the C( m •
pany, and that certainly embodied no complaint
of their having charged Pickfo:d and Co. a dif.
ferent rate from that charged to other parties. There
was certainly a demand as t:r what the defendants would
charge for carrying the goods to London, and the answer
was, the charge would be the same as if they were de-
livered by the Company to the different consignees, but
that had nothing to do with the application before the
Court.
Lord DENMAN wished to know from the other side what
was the exact nature of the case ?

Sir F. PoLLOCK said, in order to explain the case, it
would be necessary to refer to previous communica-
tions which had taken place between the parties. On the
4th of Oct., 1840, a letter was addressed to Pickford and
Co. by the Railway Company, stating that they were ready
to allow the waggons to go on, provided they would pay
•2s. 6d. per waggon per day, an I to 'pay for all repairs that
might be necessary. Mr. Pickford declined that, on the
ground that the London and Birmingham Railway Com-
pany did nc.t make such a charge. and that Messrs. Horne
and Chaplin were allowed the use of the trucks without
any additional charge. Pickford and Co. therefore re-
quired to be placed on the same footing as these parties.
Now Mr. Heyworth's affidavit set out further, that whether
Pickford's men or the Grand Junction Railway Com-
pany's men delivered the goods, the charge would be
precisely the same, the Clerk of the Company, Mr.
Chorley, having so stated to him. Horne and Chaplin
were allowed a discount of (Os. per ton for delivering the
goods in London, while Pickford was to be charged the
same sum precisely, whether the goods were delivered at
Camden Town or all over London.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Are not the rates the same
for both ?

Sir F. PoLLocx said they were, but ho apprehended
the Act of Parliament was framed to prevent anv undue
gdvantsge or favour being shown to any party. Pickford
was obliged to unload at Birmingham, while Horne and
Chaplin's goods were transferred direct to the Birming-
ham line, and carried to London. Now that, and the dis-
count of 103. per ton was giving very extensive advan-
tages to Horne and Chaplin over Pickford.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said that was blending the
rates of the two Companies, as the goods were carried
along the Birmingham line as well as along-the Grand
Junction line.

Lord DENMAN— I-Eve you made a demand of the Corr .
piny to place you on the same footing as Horne and
Chaplin ?
Mr. Justice PATTESON—That appears to me to be the
difficulty, because they say you have never made such a
demand of them.

Sir F. Por.tocx contended that Pickford's application
meant that if it meant anything, and referred to the terms
of the letters that had passed between the parties.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said these letters should have
been followed up by an application to the Company, either
to reduce the charge for Pickford's goods, or to increase
the charge on those of Horne and Chaplin.
Mr. Illcuartos, on the same side, observed that the
defendants had lately become carriers of goods them Selves,
and their object was to drive all competiiors off the line. Al.
though the rate was nominally the same to b-th ,if these car-
riers, yet the Company paid Horne anti Chaplin 10s. per ton
for delivering goods in London—the Railway Company
being themselves the carriers, and Horne and Chaplin
being merely their servants to deliver the goods. • He
subni•tted that the defendants had, in their letter, distinctly
refi.s:d to place Pickford and Co. on the same footing as
Horne and Chaplin, by which they obtained an advantage
of 109 a ton in favour of themselves as carriers. Under
these circumstances he submitted that the mandamus
ought to be made absolute.

The COURT was of opinion that although from the long
correspondence that had taken place, the defendants might
have been aware of what was expected from them, it would
be better in a case of so much importance that there should
be no discussion or doubt upon the subject. When a party
came forward and said, " I have a right to enforce an
Act of Parliament against you, and I require you
under its provisions to do so and so," there should be no
mistake or misunderstanding as to the nature of the de-
mand and refusal. The demand should be entirely free
from all mistake or doubt ; as it did not appear in the pre-
sent ease that a specific demand had been made of the
Company, the rule for the mandamus must be discharged,
but without costs.

BAIL COURT, JAN. 21.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—THE QUEEN V. LOMAX.

Mr. JERVIS moved for a rule calling own Mr. Lomax,
the proprietor of the Stockport Advertiser, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against him,
for the publication of an article reflecting upon a Mr.
Foster, a member of the Society of Friends and a respect-
able tradesman, in the town of Stockport. Ile was also.
Deputy Chairman of the Board of Guardians. It ap
peared that the Board of Guardians had come to a resolu-
tion unanimously that the system of paying rates by instal..
tnents was highly prejudicial, and that the resolution be
cdmmunicated to the Magistrates, with a request that they
would abstain from ordering the rates to be paid by
instalments, and instead would fix a time when the
rate must be paid, or if the rate-payer in their
opinion be entitled to relief than, that they would
relieve them at once from all payment. An article sub-
sequently appeared in the Stockport Advertiser, stating
that the Board of Guardians had come to a resolution to
enforce the payment of all rates upon the first application
of the collector, and imputing to Mr. Foster, that he had
been most active in procuring this resolution to be passed;
that the resolution, signed by Mr. Fcster, had been trans-
mitted to the Board of Surveyors, with a request that
they would act thereon ; and that the Board, after hearing
Mr. Foster, had scouted the proposition. These representa-
tions, which were every one of them false, were calcu-
lated to do Mr. Foster great injury, and therefore ho had
applied to this Court for redress. The whole of the alle-
gations in the libel were denied on oath.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS did not think the pressure upou
Mr. Foqer sufficiently strong to call for the interposition
of the Court. The Chester -Assizes were at hard, when
his remedy would be open to him.
Application refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 21.
MORRIS V. STAMP.

In this case, which had already occupied the Court two
days of this week, and of which we have already given the
licadv, Mr. Smith, for the defendant, addressed the Court
at some length in support of the rule ; whereas we had un-
derstood the arguments to be closed by the Solicitor-Ge-
neral and Mr. Sergeant Bompas on the same side, with
Mr. Smith, on Tuesday ; and that on this day their Lord-
ships would give judgment. The Court having heard
Mr. Smith, took Wilber time to consider.