The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-06 00:00:00

before the Chester and Birkenhead Railway was made. He
had expended above 10,000/. on the landing-place, and
7,0001. or 8,0001. in bolts, all of which had been rendered
valueless by the conduct of the defendants. In 1836 and
1837, it was proposed to make the present railway. bir.
Chamberlaine had also a scheme of giving facilities to all
the ferries, as well as his own. They were both before Par-
liament ; and it was suggested that some compromise should
be made ; and the two lines were referred to Lord Sandon
and Mr. Patten ; and the Legislature sanctiored the present
line stopping at Grange-lane; and they introduced a clause
in that Act, that the Company should not go beyond Grange-
lane to the Woodside shore. The Learned Counsel then
read the eleventh section of the Act, to show that the object
of the Act was, that the ferries of Woodside and Traumere
should be kept equal ; and the Company were not to go to
Woodside Ferry, unless they went also to Tranmere, without
they had the sanction of the proprietor of the latter. He
then went on to advert to the establishment of the Monk's
Ferry, which two trials stamped as an usurpation of the
rights of the Woodside Ferry. The parties connected with
the railway then bought Monk's Ferry, the lease of Wood-
side Ferry. and Mr. Price's freehold in it, for 50,000/. or
60.0001., and then they ran their railway to Monk's Ferry,
which had been proved in the Court of Exchequer to be part
of the liberty of Woodside Ferry, and which consequently
was an evasion of the obligations of the Company under the
Act of Parliament, to the injury of the rights of the
plaintiff: The recital of the Act proved that all the ferries
should be equal, and be both supplied. He should show from
the reports of the Company the fraud that they had prac-
tised. The object of the parties had always been to
evade this contract; and in April, 1840, the Committee of
the Company reported to the effect, that they had made
inquiries into the purchase of Woodside Ferry, and that
the object of making the purchase by the directors did
not appear very clear, as the Company were precluded by
Act of Parliament from taking the railway to that place;
and the Committee expressed their disapprobation of the
purchase. It appeared that 32,0001. had been paid for the
Woodside Ferry, subject to an annual rent of 15,000/. ; and
that they had given 25,000/. for Monk's Ferry, without any
legal right to take passengers from that terry to Liverpool ;
and that purchase was also censured ; but it was stated that
inasmuch as the Company had bought Woodside Ferry for
ten years, nobody would interfere with their use of Monk's
Ferry. The Company then smuggled a clause in one of their
Bills to relieve them from their obligation to the plaintiff,
which, being detected, was struck out. The Court of Chan-
cery had been appealed to, but had decided that it was a fit
question for a jury. He should prove Mr. Chamberlaine's
title, which had been denied. He should prove the liability
of the defendants. He should show they had rendered the
ferry utterly useless, and in fact ruined the property. Mr.
Chamberlaine has lost the cost of his improvement, and also
his boats, his property, and the rent of his hotel. There
could be no question but that Mr. Chamberlaine was entitled
to damages. He did not wish to persecute the Company, but
if his claim was not acceded to, he should call upon the jury
to give him ample recompense.
The case having been proved by evidence,
Mr. CROMPTON addressed the jury for the defendants, and
said the only question was, had the defendants really done
what they were prohibited from doing by Act of Parliament?
There was no ground for saying that damages must be given.
This was a mere question to try a right ; and when that was
'lone, they would see what would be done upon it. To call
for damages was an attempt to frighten the Company out of
giving him something approaching to the 20,000/. at which
the damages were laid. He contended that a railway to
Tranmere would be of no advantage ; and if the plaintiff suc-
ceeded, then the Monk's Ferry Railway must be put down
until the Tranmere Railway was made. It was ridiculous to
ask for the value of the pier, the boats and the estate ; the
most the plaintiff was entitled to was his right to this rail-
way. He contended that the clause in the Act of Parlia-
ment ought not to be construed strictly ; and he contended
at length, that in point of law, the defendants were entitled
to a verdict.
The JUDGE said that point was to be reserved for the opi-
nion of the Court above ; and, therefore, Mr. Crompton had
better go to the jury on the question of damages.
Mr. Chosusrox said he could net separate the two ques-
tions in his address to the jury, as special damage was out
of the case.
Mr. Jaavis said the better way would be for the jury. to
assess the damage; but if Mr. Crompton could substantiate
his legal points, to strike the damage off. Tranmere was
valuable for docks, and it was of the utmost importance to
have a railway. He had no objection to leave it to a gentle-
man of the I.)r to say what should be done, and to fix a
penalty to ensure it being done.
A conference then took place on the recommendation of
the Judge, and the parties agreed that the plaintiff should
have a verdict for the damages in the declaration, subject
to the opinion of the Court above on the clause in the Act
of Parliament, and an arbitrator to decide what shall be
done.
Verdict for the plaintiff, subject as above stated.