The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-28 00:00:00

inrb Wbittou

SUN OFFICE, Seven u' Clock

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

THE HUNGERFOP.D-MARKET COMPANY v. THE CHARING -
CROSS COMPANY. INJUN mow.
(Continued from our Afternoon. }it
Mr. BETHELI. (in continuation) submt:edtltiloinat.)ticourse
- pursued by- • le-idee Company was altogether-d unjustifiable,
e,
and one which the Court would never sanction. Repeated
negotiations on the subject had taken place between the
two companies, but the proposition of one day
was rejected the next. These negotiations had as
sumed such a character at one period, that he
when he came to read them to the Court, his
wasi sure,
onourevould be almost led to believe they were negotiating
between potentates, rather than between gentlemen forming
two important companies.
The Vece,-Cnseeceetoa—You mean, I suppose, that the
negotiations are more like protocols than anything else.
Mr. Brerngee—Just so, Sir. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to read, at considerable length, the affidavits on
behalf of the application, detailing minutely the resolutions
that had been come to, and the negotiations that had taken
place.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR wished to know what was the case
on the part of the defendants?
Mr. ROOT, who, together with Mr. Bigg, appeared as
Counsel for the Charing-cross-bridge Company, observed,
that he should rather have expected the Court to have
asked what was the case of the Hungerford Market Coin-
pany.—(A laugh.) The case of the defendants was founded,
as no doubt the Court had some slight notion, on the lease.
The `ICE-CuaexcELeoet—As to the negotiations, they all
go fur nothing.
Mr. ROOT said that the only point between them turned
upon the covenants in the lease. The plaintiffs had thought
fit, for the support of their own case, to read certain resolutions
and negotiations that had taken place; those negotiations
had nothing to do with the question now in dispute. The defen-
dants contended that the construction put upon the covenant
in the lease by the plaintiffs was altogether an erroneous one.
The Learned Cuensel then proceeded to read the affidavits on
behalf of the defendants, in answer to those filed by the
plaintieq.
The Vice.CitaxceeLon wished to know whether the point
in dispute acs such a one as was capable of being decided by
an action upon the covenant.
Mr. GlFFAnn—Certainly.
Mr. ROOT said is was quite clear that such an injunction
as had been asked by the plaintiffs, without their having
been in poeeesilon of their legal rights, or without a legal
decision, eeual not be granted.
Mr. BETILELL said, that if the plaintiffs could bring any
action, they would do so. It was utterly impossible that the
Market Company could part with that which was worth at
least 3,000/. a year to them.
Mr. Roe'r said that the Bridge Company had offered to
the Mai.kee Company everything to which they were en-
titled.
Mr. Dimmer. observed that that was for the Court to de-
cide. When his Honour had stated his opinion to be that
the Market Company were bend to distinguish every steam-
boat passenger, then his Learned Friend (Mr. Dolt) might
say, and nut till then, that the Bridge Company had
offered them everything to which they were entitled.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to contend
that, his clients were entitled to the injunction which
they asked fete The Market Company had performed
their part of the covenant in the lease, and having done so
they were entitled to call upon the defendants to perform
theirs. There could be no doubt the true construction of the
covesieent was, that free access should be given to all steam.
boat passengers across the bridge from the market end to the
first tower, where the float was placed, and he would leave
it to the Court to determine, after the statements in the affi-
davits he had read, whether that free access had been given.
If the:Court wished the case to go to law, the plaintiffs would
take it there, but the injunction, he submitted, must be granted
in the meantime. If the Ghat sent a case to a court of
law, he hoped it would he directed to the Court of Conn-non
Pleas, beeate,e it might be tried next term.
At the conclusion of the arguments of Mr. Bethel], on
behalf of the plaintiff, the further consideration of the case
was adjourned till Monday next, the last day of term.