The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-18 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, I)ec. 17.

OOLEMAN V. THE DIRECTORS OF THE EASTERN COUNTIES
RAILWAY COMPANY.—IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR delivered judgment in this case to-day,
which came before the court upon a motion on the part
of the defendants to dissolve an injunction that had been
obtained by the plaintiff. The question at issue was one of
the greatest importance to the public. There were five
parties to be considered in this matter :—the Eastern
Counties Railway Company, the Eastern Union Railway
Company, the Harwich Steam-packet Company, the
plaintiff, and the public. The plaintiff was a shareholder
in the Eastern Counties Railway, which by its Act was
invested with very extensive powers. Railways were of
so comparatively recent an existence that neither the Le-
gislature nor courts of law had been able to consider those
powers in all the lights, relations, and operations in
which they should be regarded, to enable them to be
correctly dealt with. However, general principles
must be applied to them where such were appli-
cable. To look at a railway as a common
partnership would be hardly sufficient to estimate ,
It, its powers being so vast, and the exercise of them
so influential on private and public interests. The Act,
in his opinion, gave no further powers to railway com-
panies than it stated, or, at all events, than were necessary
for carrying out what was set forth, which latter was
not always very clear. It had been stated that power
was given to railway companies to enter into new trans-
actions, and it had been contended that they were em-
powered to use the funds of the company in any way
they thought was calculated to increase the traffic of the
undertaking. But in no Act on the subject was there
power given of the nature contended for. lie did not
mean to enter into the question of the advantage which
the project, proposed by the defendants, might confer
on the railway or the public. It' might even be
a national benefit, but in effecting it the directors would
bo 'sealing with millions of the capital of the railway
under their direction. They would be applying this to
the support of the Harwich Steam-packet Company to
an extent of 150,0001. or 300,0001. But they not only
proposed to do this by giving an interest of 5 per cent.
out of the funds of the railway company, but they even
guaranteed to secure, from the same source, those who
should embark in this steam-packet company, against
all loss in the event of its failure. Now, there was
nothing in the Act of Parliament to authorise this. He
did not attach much importance to the consent of the
majority at a meeting to embark in the proposed
undertaking, for it could not confer legality upcn that
which they had no authority or power to perform. Be
sides, it was well known that the motives which fre-
quently obtained acquiescence in certain speculators,
were no other than an extravagant cupidity to obtain a
larger return than they were at present realising, or a
terror of entering into a content with those who
were more powerful than themselves. From these con-
siderations he would not dissolve the injunction.

VICE. CHANCE RY OUR T, Dec. 17.
(Before the VICE•CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
llis Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took
causes to-day, but no case calling for a particular report
came before hia Honour during the morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LUCAS.
This was a petition on which exceptions were taken to
the Master's report. The defendant, Mr. Lucas, had
married the daughter of the petitioners (Mr. and Mrs.
Jago), who was only 18 years of age, and entitled to
property to the amount of 20,0001. The Master's finding
would, if carried out, give the defendant a power over
the property of the wife, which, it was contended, was
at variance with the spirit and terms of the Act of Par-
liament, which provided, that a husband marrying under
these circumstances should not derive any pecuniary bene-
fit from the estate of his wife, nor be placed in a situation
to exercise any power over its disposition. The case turned
entirely upon the construction of the Act of Parliament,
which the defendant's counsel contended never contem-
plated an interpretation so stringent as that sought to
be established by the petitioners, which, if carried out,
would operate most injuriously, depriving the wife of the
power of rewarding her husband for kind treatment.
Mr. Homily appeared in support of the petition, and
Mr. Tinney for the defendant.
His HONOUR deferred judgment.