The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-23 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

STAINES V. TAYLOR.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
to-day, and occupied his Lordship the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(TITIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
The further arguments in the part-heard case of Terry
v. Wacher occupied his Honour the whole day.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
GEARY V. NORTON.
This was a cause in which the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Geary and Co., shawl manufacturers, in Leeds, sought
for the continuance as well as the costs of an injunction
that had been obtained last year to prevent the defend-
ants, James Norton and James Ford Haneford, selling
an article called the Royal Mecklin Shawl, which had
been registered by the plaintiffs.
It appeared that the defendants, who travelled about
for business, had obtained an order from a person named
Burrell to supply him with a number of the shawls in
question, and that Norton accordingly went to a Mr.
Scott, shawl manufacturer, in Leicestershire, and
got the order executed. This coming to the ears
of the plaintiffs, they had a correspondence with the
defendants, and eventually obtained the injunction. The
infringement of the patent was admitted by the defend-
ants, but they contended that the injunction was an un-
called-for and vexatious proceeding, they having but
four days before it had been obtained, and on the dis-
covery of the fact of the shawl being a patent article,
wrote to the defendants, promising to suspend the sale of
all the shawls of this description in their possession, of
which there was a large number.

At the conclusion of the arguments,
His HONOUR said he would order"the defendants to
pay the general costs, and would continue the injunction.

QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.)
THE QUEEN V. THE OVERSEERS OF KIRBY LONSDALE.
In this case a mandamus had been obtained in the
Bail Court, at the instance of a person named Tennant,
who had been a paid assistant-overseer of the parish, but
who had been discharged from that office by the Poor-
law Commissioners for improper conduct, calling upon
the overseers of the parish to produce the authority
under which they held their offices.
Mr. GODSON, Q.C., now applied to the Court to dis-
charge the rule with costs. He read an affidavit from
Alderman Thompson, the largest proprietor in the town-
ship, stating that the value of Tennant's property in the
parish was only 101. 16s. a year, that the overseers were
appointed by the votes of nearly the whole of the parish,
that the conduct of Tennant had been refractory and
litigious, and that his only motive in the proceeding was
to harass and annoy the overseers so appointed. He
was supported in his application by a person named
Grundy, who appeared anxious to become one of the
overseers, but it appeared by the affidavit that he was
not a substantial householder, and not a fit person to
the matter aggrieved he might ap-
pealby certiorari
hold
to
oucte
hhanaeoaffisice(n).s, lofrhberifneglt
into this Court. He had, however, appealed, but un-
successfully, and he now came to this Court in order
that he might annoy the parties, and put them to great
expense.
Mr. NA.MSEY, who was with Mr. Godson, argued
that such an application was wholly unprecedented and
untenable.
Mr. PASHLEY argued, on the other hand, that a party
who was interested in the appointments, like Mr. Ten-
nant, had a perfect right to call upon the overseers to
show by what authority they held their offices, espe-
cially as he was prepared to show that they were not
duly appointed. He cited the authority of Lord Camp-
bell, who, when Attorney-General, so argued, and cases
in which the Court had granted writs of mandamus to
inspect the accounts and other documents appertaining
to the affairs of the parish in which they
wero rated inhabitants. A ratepayer, quite irrespective
of the amount of which he was rated, had a perfect right
to make such an inspection: it would be most unjust to
refuse him an opportunity of doing so, because, though
his stake might be small, he had to contribute his quota
to the expenses of the parish, and he had a perfect right
to examine the expenditure. He submitted that the rule
should be made absolute.
The COURT considered that the opposition was un-
precedented and uncalled for. The rule must, therefore.
be discharged, with costs.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE regretted that he granted the
rule in the first instance; he should not have acceded to
it if the facts detailed to-day had been before him.

THE QUEEN V. THE CODIMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had to show cause
against a rule which had been obtained by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Crowder, calling upon the Commissioners
of Sewers to show cause why a certiorari should not be
directed to them, calling upon them to remove into this
Court a presentment which they had made against
William Kinnaird Jenkins, bearing date the 18th
of August last, and relating to the construction
of a sewer under Monmouth-road, Paddington,
with the order of the Commissioners referred to therein.
Mr. Justice Erie would no doubt recollect that the case
had been before him on affidavits at chambers, and that
his Lordship refused to make an order to stay proceed-
ings after the 10th of November. The facts were simply
these:—The affidavit of the Commissioners stated that
Mr. Jenkins applied to them for power to build a new
sewer from certain houses in Monmouth-street, St.
Mary's parish, into a sewer called the Ranelagh sewer,
the main sewer of the district, which was under the
direction of the Commissioners. The new sewer did not
extend to the boundary line of Mr. Jenkins' pro-
perty-, and the Commissioners in acceding to his
application on the 18th of August last, directed
him to carry it to the boundary he had,
however, contemptuously refused to obey this order,
although he had received notice that the Commissioners
would exercise the powers vested in them if he did not
comply with the order—namely, amerce him in the sum
of 3,0001., unless he should complete the sewer in the
course of one calendar month. It went on to say that a
Mr. Anderson had obtained leave to build a sewer in
connexion with the Ranelagh sewer, which ought, for
the public benefit, to form a junction with Mr. Jenkins's
sewer, and that they made an order to carry this into
effect, but that Mr. Jenkins had built a wall which en-
tirely prevented Mr. Anderson from completing the con-
nexion, therefore causing a ,‘ hindrance and impedi-
ment ;" and he was amerced in a fine of 50/. The re-
gulations which the Commissioners were empowered to
enforce, with respect to persons making sewers, stated
that all persons who had obtained leave to construct
sewers leading through property divided by boundary
adjoiningin ord e r
to property.
deprive
theH Commissioners
lines, being separate property, should be required, when
such boundary was within thirty feet of the buildings,
to carry it to the outside of the boundary line of such
the very limit of his land, but he stopped two feet short,
built
powerhisg aoldv.eernthaet
sewer, and to prevent any one from forming a junction
with it without paying him. Mr. Anderson built on the
adjoining lands, but he was unable to complete his on
account of the hiatus of the two feet. He appealed to
the Commissioners, who directed Jenkins to complete
the sewer in two months. When the matter was before
the Commissioners various objections were made—
namely, that the notice was not properly served,
and that he had no notice of the proceed-
ings taken against him. No notice was neces-
sary,as they were in the nature of
an inquest.
and the proceedings were merely preliminary. Objec-
tions had been since raised to the following effect:_.
That he was only a life-owner of the estate, and that the
Court had no power to amerce
build .
the him; that they had no
power to compel him to sewer beyond
the extent of the boundary; that the fine was
excessive, and that the jury were misled in
imposing it, and that his interest in the property was
not adequate to the proceedings against him. Now the
defendant had admitted that he had notice of the inqui-
sition. Then he did not traverse as he should have
done, if he wished to urge those objections. It might
be said that an action might be brought by the Com-
missioners for breach of contract; but by the 47 Geo.
111., see. 3, the commissioners themselves were ems
powered to punish persons so offending by amercement
or otherwise. He had always
treated with the commis-
sionerswner of the
as if he was the ?. Property, and the
adopt, if he wished get the fine set
proper course to
..
to the Lords of
aside, was by application the Treasury.
Then the sewers became the property of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers. He trusted on those grounds that
the
Court would discharge the rule with costs.
Mr. BoVILL followed on the
same side.
Mr. CROWDER appeared in support of the rules He
contended that the sewers were not. the property of
the commissioners, but of the public, for whom they were
trustees, and that the order of the commissioners was
the power which they possessed
only inasmuch as
only extended to the construction of sewers under the
superintendence of their officer, and not to the entire
'
right of sewers built at the expense of private persons. It
would be absurd to say that an
Act passed in the 47th of
such
George 111. gave them a monopoly of private
property, without affording the owners compensation.
proceeding was to afford Mr. The real object of the proc
An-
derson certain conveniences at the expense of Mr. Jen-
kins, who had done all he was required to do, in a
substantial manner years ago • but now in 1846, fault
was found with him. He was, however, willing
to complete the sewer on terms to be arranged
between him and Mr. Anderson. It was a great public
question whether the Commissioners did or did not
exercise powers to which they were not strictly entitlqcl.

, NOVEMBER 23, 1846.

They had the control of public, but not of private,
sewers, except to see that they were properly made,
and did not become a nuisance, under the 47th
of George the Thi.(:, under which they stated they
exercised their powers. There was no language in the
Act to justify such an arbitrary power as was exercised
by the commissioners, and set forth in the bye-law, and un-
less for the public good were not empowered to compel
a person to carry a sewer thirty feet beyond the spot he
might require it. If it was held to be good, they might
compel a person building houses to carry a sewer 200
feet further than was necessary, on the supposition that
the public would be thereby benefited. lle then went
on to deal with the other objections, all of which he held
were fatal, and trusted the Court would make the rule
absolute, in order that the whole matter might come be-
fore the review of the Court.

Mr. Bristow and Mr. Higgins followed on the same
side.

The COURT conferred together for some time, but
took time to consider.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

YATES V. THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER.—CONSTRUCTION
OF THE LANDS' CLAUSFS CONSOLIDATION ACT.
Mr. WORDSWORTH, on behalf of Mr. Yates, applied
for a rule, directed to the Commissioners for the Im-
provement of the City of Westminster, calling on them
to show cause why they did not deliver up to Mr. Yates
the appointment of an arbitrator, in order that it
might be made a rule of Court to enforce an award.
The question would affect the construction of the
Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act, as passed in the last
session of Parliament, His client was the proprietor
and occupier of some premises in Tothill-street, West-
minster, and he reeeived notice from die Commissioners
that his property was required for the purposes of the
Act under which they were appointed. Mr. Yates sent
in his claim, and the matter under certain provisions
was referred to arbitration. The result was that the
sum of 1,7261. Bs. was awarded to Mr. Yates. That award
gave great dissatisfaction to the Commissioners, who
were determined to resist it. By the Act appointing
the Commissioners, the Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act
was incorporated with it. By these joint Acts it was
enacted that, in case any dispute as to the amount of
compensation should arise, the matter might be referred
to arbitration, each side choosing an arbitrator, who in
their turn should choose an umpire. The matter being
once submitted to arbitration, could not be withdrawn un-
less by consent of all parties ; and the party in possession
of the award and the dncuments submitting the case to
arbitration were compelled to furnish copies, and to allow
inspection and use of the original. The Commissioneis
in this case were applied to to give up the award and
submission, in order that they might be made a rule of
Court as it was expressly provided in the Act, but they
refused to do so, as a copy had been furnished but the
original detained.
Mr. Justice ERLE—The question is whether the
rule is to be to show cause why the original document
should not be delivered up, or why the authenticated
copy should not be made a rule of Court.
Mr. WORDSWORTH said that was the difficulty, but
the rule and alternative could be given. Then a very
important question arose, as to what documents con-
stituted the submission under the 25th section of the
Act. The question must be decided very shortly, as
it would affect the interest of every railway com-
pany, or company for improvement, which had
been formed since the passing of the Lands' Clauses Con-
solidation Act. The Learned Counsel then cited several
authorities as to the mode in which the rule should be
given.
Mr. Justice ERLE granted a rule nisi, to show cause
why the original documents should not be delivered up,
or in default, why the copy should not be made a rule of
Court instead,