The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-25 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor heard appeal motions to day.
CLIFFORD V. TURRI LL.
This case was part heard yest,rday upon an appeal
motion from the deci.ion of the Vice-Chancellor Knight

Bruce.
The LORD CHANCELLOR this morning, on taking his
seat, gave jaiLzment, discharging the order pronounced
by the Vice-Chanctlior.
TONLINS)N V. THE NJRTEI STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY

COMPANY.
This case came before his Lordship upon an appeal
motion from the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor of
England, ordering an injunction which he had previously
granted to be dissolved. The injunction which had
been granted exparte restrained the North Stafford-
shire Railway Company from proceeding with
an embankment over certain glebe lands belong-
ing to the plaintiff, in the parish of Stoke-upon-
Trent, and from doing any other act for the purpose of
carrying their railway over a part of such lands upon a
solid embankment instead of upon a viaduct, and from ire
any manner constructing their railway otherwise than
trey we re empowered to do by the Act of Parliament.
The statements in the Bill upon which the injunction
was granted were to the effect that the railway company
were acting contrary to the powers of their Act; that
from the original plans laid down by the company the
L plaintiff was led to believe that no embankment would be
made, but that the railway was to be carried across by
I means of a viaduct, and that upon this understanding
the valuation was made under which the plaintiff was
to receive the sum of 1,6001. The principal reason the
plaintiff had for supposing that an embankment was not
to be made, was that only so much land was marked
upon the place as intended to be taken as would enable
the company to construct a viaduct of the same width
at the base as upon the top. The defendants asserted
that it never had been their intention to make a viaduct,
and that they had given the plaintiff notice in July last
that they should require an increased quantity of land,
which would enable them to form the base of the same
width as other parts of the line where embankments were
made. Upon the motion being made before the Vice-
Chancellor of England to dissolve the injunction,
his Honour ordered the injunction to be :dissolved,
considering that a sufficient case had not been made out
for maintaining it. Observing, also, that there was no
question that the company had a right at law to make
the embankment, although some misunderstanding ap-
peared to have taken place. At any rate there bad been
no binding agreement between the parties, but the whole
affair had originated in a mistake; and he thought the
injunction ought never to have been applied for. From
this decision the present appeal was brought.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Lake Russell appeared in support
of the appeal motion; and Mr. Bethell and Mr. Malins
supported the decision of the Court below.
The LORD CHANCHLLOR, without hearing counsel in
support of the decision of the Court below, dismissed
the appeal motion with COAL
THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL V. MUNRO.
In our report of this case, yesterday, we stated that
Mr. Grant was the trustee who forcibly took possession
of the church, it should have been Mr. Shepherd.
BARKER. V. THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY.
This case came before his Lordship upon ap-
peal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce, refusing to dissolve an injunction
which had been granted ex parte. The plaintiff
is the owner of land and saltworks, at Sandback,
in Cheshire, and the North Staffordshire Railway Com-
pany having given him notice of their intention to take
nine pieces of land belonging to him, and then having
entered upon the land, tendering a bond for
the value of seven pieces only, an injunction was
granted restraining them from further entry upon the
land, or continuing in possession of, or constructing
their railway works upon, any part of it. Upon an
application on behalf of the company to dissolve the
injunction the Vice-Chancllor refused the motion, and
from that decision the present appeal was brought.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, without hearing counsel in
support of the judgment of the Court below, dismissed
the appeal motion with costs.