The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-18 00:00:00

JAMES V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Byles. Mr. Gunning, and Mr. Burcham were
counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Sanders
for the defendants.
This was a case involving a question of considerable im-
portance to the Eastern Counties Railway, being a claim for
tolls alleged to be due by them to the plaintiff as the lessee
of the Commissioners for Paving and Lighting the town of
Cambridge. Though the question was stated to be purely
one of law, which could not be decided at Nisi Prius, yet the
circumstances under which it arose and the points intended
to be raised for the opinion of the Court may not be
uninteresting to the railway interest. It is known to
all the world, doubtless, that the Eastern Counties
Railway station for this town is situate at a little
distance out of the town, the line of railway crossing the
Hills-road and the Newmarket-road, which are both carried
over it on bridges, but would otherwise have been crossed on
a level, and Coldham-lane on a dead level, there being there
gates for the safety of the public. From first to last the
railway runs a distance of 2i miles within the limits of the
borough, but the points at which it crosses the roads are all
out of what may be popularly termed " the town," the paving
and lighting not being carried up to them when this action
was commenced, and there not being a continuous line of
houses up to them. Before the railway was opened to Cam-
bridge and now there were commissioners appointed under
various Acts for paving, lighting, and cleansing the town,
who were empowered to collect Is. 6d., by way of toll, from
every stage-coach, diligence, or other such public carriage,
carrying passengers or parcels for hire, and 2d. for every
waggon, wain, cart, or other such carriage laden with any
goods, wares, or other merchandise coming to, or going from,
or out of the said town of Cambridge, besides other tolls for
all stock brought into the same. These tolls the commie.•
Blotters may, by lease, authorise other parties to collect, and as
since the opening of the railway all the coaches whose
names have been cherished in the memory of old Cautabs,
such as the Times, the Star, the Rocket, the Telegraph, and
even Marsh and Swan's stage waggons, have departed this
life, the sources of the coramissioners' income would seem to
have been well nigh exhausted. A keen investigation of the
various Acts under which the town was governed and the
tolls authorised to be collected led to the belief that they
might still be enforced from the railway company, and the
present action was forthwith brought against them to recover
the amount of 1591., as tolls alleged to be due for.the first six
months of their operations, it being contended that he was
entitled to levy the tolls specified in the Commis oners' Act
on each railway carriage and truck, on passing through the
town of Cambridge or the precincts thereof; while the de-
fendants insisted that they did not come within any such
liability, or that, at all events, the toll could only be levied on
each train.

The facts above stated having been agreed upon between
the learned counsel, it was arranged that a special verdic
should be taken, in order to raise the question in dispute for
the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. Subject, there-
fore, to this plan, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
for 1591.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Joseph Myers, who was on Monday brought up on a
warrant, in which he was stated to have been, together
with other persons, found feloniously in possession of a
number of ten-pound notes of the Warwick and Lea-
mington Bank, was again put to the bar yesterday.
Mr. Mullins, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, ap-
peared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hobler attended for
the prisoner.
The evidence of Superintendent Roby, of the Lea-
mington police, was read, and Mr. Roby stated that he
had a witness to produce who could swear to the identity
of the prisoner, so that he should be justified in remov-
ing the prisoner to the place in which the robbery was
committed.
Thomas Archer, of No. 6, Cullum-street, Lime-street,
bootmaker, was then called upon the part of the prose-
cution. He stated that he had been examined before
Mr. Russell, the magistrate at Leamington, when the
warrant which was produced had been granted. In the
examination which then took place he had spoken of a
person named Myers. The prisoner was that person.
Mr. Mullins intimated that the identification just es-
tablished was sufficient to justify the Lord Mayor in
sending the prisoner to Leamington in the custody of
the superintendent.
Mr. Roblier submitted that a more accurate identifica-
tion was necessary, as the warrant upon which the pri-
soner had been apprehended charged him with having
been feloniously in possession of stolen notes.
The Loan MAYOR expressed a desire to have satisfac-
tory information as to the identity of the prisoner.
Mr. Mullins (to the witness)—Are yon sure that he
is the person mentioned in the warrant ? Witness—l
swear that he is the same person.
Mr. Hobler—How do you know that he is the man ?
Witness—l saw him in a certain transaction upon money
and bank-notes. They were Leam ginton and Warwick
notes. I detailed about them to the magistrate.
Mr. Mullins—Was the transactio!?relating to the
parcel of notes specified in the hand-bill?
the
Witness—
Yes. I saw the notes counted and
taken to the prisoner
up-stairs, at the prisoner's house, and I heard the pri-
soner ay, ~Ive can't give more for them then we have
offereds, for they are all following numbers, and on that
account not so valuable, or words to that effect." I had
had the notes in my own hands, and I know they were
part of the notes referred to in the bill offering the
reward.
Mr. Hobler—How came you to have the notes in your
hands? Witness—Because the party who had them,
who was a clerk in the Leamington banking house was
in distress, and he came to me. I had known him,
having been myself in business at Leamington. He came
to me in the early part of last spring. I first of all met
him promiscuously in the streets. A man named Blaney
put the notes into my hands, and I saw them counted.
A man was going to sell them to the prisoner. I can't
swear to the exact number, but I understood they were
to the amount of 1,000/. in 101. notes. They were old
notes, all looking as if they had been in circulation for
some time.
Mr. Hobler—You never saw them in Myer's hand ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. Hobler—Why, then, did you say that you saw
them in his hand ? Witness—No. I never saw them
in his hand. I never meant to say so. I went with a
man of the name of Jennings to Myers's house, and Jen-
nings had the notes in his possession when weV went to
the house. Jennings is one of the parties named in the
warrant.
Mr. Hobler—Pray, have you ever been in trouble your-
self ? Witness—l don't know what you mean.
Mr. Hobler—Have you ever been in any difficulty ?
Witness—l was once in a difficulty about a half sovereign,
but I received damages for that.
Mr. Hobler—Have you ever been at Worship-street
Police-court for an assault ? Witness —Yes. I was
there for an assault upon a child. It was brought
against me by a woman of the town for the purpose of
extorting money from me, and I was honourably ac-
quitted.
Mr. Hobler contended that the witness's statement
was not sufficient evidence upon which to send his client
to Leamington on such a serious charge.
The LOAD MAYOR—(to the witness)—Are you sure

the prisoner is the man of whom you speak ? WAN ss
—Certainly ; I know him perfectly well.
The LORD MAYOR—I am satisfied, and delver up the
prisoner to the superintendent.
The prisoner was then taken away.
The case excited a great deal of interest, and during
the examination the Justice-room was crowded to
excess.