The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-13 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

SAUNDERS V. BENSON.
1-4ercl LANGDALE gave judgment in this suit which was
glEtituted to compel the specific perfermarwe of the
fie°!entiats in a lease in which the defendant was bene-
Linelailwlyhile in
interested. The property had been underleased,
possession of the under-tenant, had become
Breltly dila ida t,ed, and the plaintiff had been obliged
th"?esort to an action of ejectment, at the expiration of
]ease, to obtain possession, whereby he had incurred
Insidorable expense. But he neglected to file a bill
1..111.11 more than six years afterwards, whereby it was.
Ist
his right to had elapsed. His Lordship
relief
8414 thought
the the plaintiff had been entitled to require
hadPerforrnance of the covenant in the lease, but as he
relrPag The delayed his claim, he -was not now entitled
tho gill must therefore be dismissed, but he
4
1151 it the justice of the case would be satisfied by dis-
'44aing it ivithout costs.
VT rm.
CHANCERY—(THIS DAY).
The
her Part-heard case of Brown v. Brown, which came
ore ise the Vice-Chancellor ice-uhancellor of England upon further di-
ens, Occupied his Honour the whole morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor 'KNIGHT BRUCE.)
.11,
RoNotra Was engaged during the early part of the
of
nYola disposing of unopposed petitions and short causes
general interest.
Oa th• )iILBANK V. STEVENS.
eatue7l3 cause, which stood first on the list of long
tltdred hearing to-day, being called on, his Honour in-
the Coif all the necessary parties in the suit were before
?
gist' ,•is s PENcE, Q.C., who appeared for the plaintiff, re-
of k 'mkt they were not in a condition to prove the next
11.111 and heir-at-law.
te lii°Noult said that, in that case, he would refer it
the Master to inquire into that question, and directed
to euse to stand out of the paper, with liberty to apply
(-:ourt when a supplemental bill was filed.
AND OTHERS V. WILCOXON AND OTHERS.
taiz tins cause being called, Mr. Cooper who was re-
the
ob init, entered at some length into a statement of
Ject of the bill, when his Honour inquired if the
Adm.,
It dams Counsel were in Court?
44:151,Pearing that the Counsel engaged for the defen-
violas had left, Court under the impression that the pre-
dit,etearluse would occupy the entire day, his Honour
oft e" the cause to be struck out.
lbe
hother causes were, fora similar reason, also struck
4f te paper.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM).
4_114 b SUTHERLAND V. BRIGGS.
fklAgy ,"earing of this cause, which was part-heard yes-
tebegfi,"'rrairatted this morning. His Honour requested
Possejrl'ahed with copies of the proceedings, and post-
'
Juoginent.
tb• MOUNSEY V. BURNHAM.
;"18 cause the bill was filed by the Rev. Thomas
Irtnt -hireY, who is the vicar of the parish of Outhorn, in
da Is„
e, against Robert Barnham, a farmer, occupying
tithes ‘ithin the parish. By the bill, the plaintiff claimed
%se „,°f Clover and hay for the farm in question. The
-48 still proceeding when we went to press.

Ti Tio N'S BENCH....-(THIS DAY.)
QUEEN V. TEE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY
COMPANY.
fkat 1.• .r,jll Fr said this was a mandamus directed to the
Countieshem Railway Company, and calling upon.
lat 4 Amon a Jury and assess compensation for the
41..• e tnd injury done to the land of the prosecutor,
9414 a jeuittridgje Y The writ recited that the prosecutor
mists `l,easilholdrfOr a long period of certain land and pre-
adjoined a public, highway or road, called
t„•
,'" Field-road—that the defendants, in order
a1th...,-ITY their railway over the said road, had
d -ea
;it by lowering the road to such a
Ltt 441 front of the land of the prosecutor,
Itired- had been thereby greatly damaged and
alte ~ and that he had been obliged to
tekr additional fences and lower a part of the land in
same to °,,the beneficial occupation and enjoyment
.o the
cut th,„.4 that mandamus there was a return which set
the land of the prosecutor was not a part of the
4and equired for the purposes of the railway ; that the
talte,,,as hot entered upon by the Company, nor
%tiled , her used by them, nor was it in their
theyf4'es, and that Collinridge was not the owner
r ,liatid taken by the Company, or over which
tht(l,e_eas,t,itio•airof ran. The return, therefore, raised
e.41,1.ur ; whether a party was entitled to compeene-t
ute aijury where the Company had not actually
or taken, or used, any part of the land in ckuheint
the
~on.
reae•ne submitted to the Court, that, elettrly:wi
k‘(ltiediti! :f„ the Act ofParliament, Mr. Collinridge was eu-
-raPensation. In the first place the return was
nstrer to the mandamus, because if the Company
'kle-rltitled to rely on the statement that no damage
that:en done to the land, they should have stated
'erElf.-et in order that it might be traversed. They
ki4d, Y state in a few words, that they have not taken, or
art Or., gone upon the land of the prosecutor. The
;rider which the Company was incorporated was
/ytb thieC and 7th Wm. 4th, chap. 106, and the sections
a referred to the awarding compensation were the.
rid th
11u, ,-e 29th. The Act empowered the Company in
4444
i.tetrf the railway, itlow
liat Way to enter upon and take land for the pur-
eand by the 29th section they were.
1;1'Y case in which the land was damaged or injuri-
grant to the owners or lessees com-
N„I?n• There were two cases in which compensa-
-1,(1 t° be awarded—first, in the case in which the
•n;V„kenl.-'htal' and, ondly, where the land was not
‘vi "tit y affect.ed. The Learned Counsel,
th, s
cases ad the clauses awarding compensation, referred to
cf the Queen v. the Nottingham Water Works
kad tIIY),T, the
Ring v. the Commissioners of the Thames
411,,kt els-avigation and the King v. the Exeter Improve-
b7,alee„„rnPartY which last, he contended, was strictly
i'stio44;sstLe. the case before' the Court. There the Com-
-I:Jhlit,b;,.".id Power to lower a road or high-way,
.and
le,Ne s',„‘alits of the houses on either side were obliged
4"%tti "'Vs in order to obtain access, and claimed com-
l. rot teha, which th C issioners refused. The case came
ialtt4;;Q,Crrt of eQueen'smni Bench on a mandamus, and their
ktihotisi ere et opinion that the hou.ses having been
e,„4 affected the owners were entitled to compen-
N;„`aii; f;'''w he submitted that that came not only
t4tt-,e,,sPirit but the very letter of the present Act,
tells s `ue Prosecutor was entitled to compensation.
qnd - GENERAL for the defendant!, con ten ded
;4,-lateti; 'a present Act the party applying for the
11%di4p1; eras not entitled to compensation. He would
eral.-elst,l,lo decisions. that had been come to in tho
pertNp,nsu_s.. cited by Learned Friend, but
thes:alar cation awarded thereinls turned upon the
clang sev,reallses inserted for that purpose in
din " has ins
Acts. Indeed, the very fact of these
titicokrY g been introduced, showed that under the
'll-111Pensation clauses they would not be en-1
I_!laate eY
\v"ith ' Contained special clauses to give specie
qu s„ the ,".lere were no such clauses in the Act under
waVesent Company was incorporated. The
tes;`'w was oigct: the greafer importance because if the
441 e as ehtiti P'ltion that the prosecuto'r in. the present
ged t t o hay compensation for the injury he was
Ileg the lin e sustained, there was not an owner of land
tth xneanin e of the railway who would not be entitled.
elearl"g of the word " damaged or injuriously affect-
pal the referred to the injury sustained by land taken
aa'ses of the railway, which was first to be.
yrites
or then the injury sustained by the placing of
everance was an additional damage for
Hz "eh the Coparty .
. entitled to additional compensatio.nl.
u. t should be of opinion that for consequentia
accruing to a party from the making of the
k compensation should be awarded, there would
jilta t end to the matter. A party living five or. ten
trll.°4l a railway
.might complain. that he was obliged
;41,1.1400 or. three miles further round in order
.to get
el 4, in consequence of the making. of the railway,
teet-,44 compensation for consequential damage. Now,
tLased that the principle recognised by the Courts
114 i • a ia
L, Iv all these cases Nyas, that the consequent' I
tli*,4/1 damage to individuals ought not to counter-
not
to the public at large, and if the rule
that ',I good, no public work could be constructed
~(11xittry,
the having replied.
"lrt took time to consider its judgment.

Iti.itcNihn lictelolin taQsPijOtrniELeEdßybTePfAo(rLeT3lELHßOlrdhSeAnDbainA,g,eeYrrdi'ae)tt was
4111ki f-4 London after last term, w 4r.
TAEoe plaintif.
;tlttil,,icza on the part of the defendant, obtained
01: Tllitsei to set aside such verdict, and for a 7.
ti, tea ease having been called on, his Lord
Ot th,,, over his notes, from which it appeared
bitclk;`,Plaintiffs auctioneer lately residing in
NI -- s‘reet,
~ t_a, _. _ es mins ,
Iv Ts' an
who was employed to sel
,s,'ltilt,„_`:" At orwood, upon which Colonel Torrens had
iN,IVY ; the plaintiff had a written authority to sell,
klis ,v 0 the defendant, and seven or eight other p r
v7aNge, were interested in the estate. It further atpe-
,_rti teat the'v had been a negotiation between h
iiT. %)4fFiltitthila *P!aintiff for raising the sum of 1,8001. to
that the
o.tlltiff e annuity. It was proved
1.11 tt
ttltoolt all the steps necessary to bring
k„,N aeu,„e,' Advertisements were inserted in va-
it Ne, 'Tapers, the estate was surveyed and a plan
tNe 1141 all other • liminaries gone through, when,.
.lkilltitfrltile before the day appointed for the sale, the
1., tato," an advertisement- in the papers, stating that
Orth. is Property was to be sold by Messrs. Shuttle-
i',:_liaci itgeet..th?r efore claimed his commission, the same. as. if
lb,' 157/ :,ally sold the property. He brought his action
1.h."„ "I,,',°s. but the Jury gave a verdict for l
wy
Bp
th -- deft
attempted to be set up at the trian
t_ , t'Aititputherisation to sell was conditional upoe_ hhee
4444 °btaining• an advance of money to pay tr t
Iltiti Y, and that he having failed. to do so, he was not.
Ptili,zh. esdttowrheicelvehreeilladier ore. his own trouble, or the ex
n In order to prove his case
Parstlnsel for the defendant proposed to call a Mr.
ti") sell, °tt, who was ono of the parties signing the authorig
42r4ii al.ti Proposed to make him a good witness by en-_
-"j'e.t44l3 name upon the record. Plaintiff's Counsel
klict,
re,..0 this, and his Lordship holding the objection
v -\tr. V•l6ed to allow the witness to be examined. _
'tstliQt, LAT'r addressed the Court in support of the
At o 4
,het was interrupted b the rising of the Court
ether
,3.titiltoecsk,einncorredleyrntehaastetsh. "Judges might meet the

BAIL COURT-(THIS DAY)

THE QUEEN V. COOPER.--CERTIORARI.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved for a rule for a cer-
tiorari to remove the indictment in the above cause from
the Borough Sessions of Bridgnorth into this Court. He
made the application on behalf of the p •osecutor, an
attorney residing at Wellington. The indictment had
been preferred against the defendant for publishing a
libel, reflecting on the professional character of the pro-
secutor, in a newspaper called the Shropshire Conserva-
tive. He founded his application on the grounds that the
jurisdiction of the Sessions of the borough of Bridgnorth
was very small; that there was great party feeling in the
borough; that in so small a jurisdiction, it would be
impossible to have a choice of jurors; that it was impos-
sible to secure a fair and impartial trial.—Application
granted.