The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

CAMPBELL V. T 115.: BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. BETHELL Q.C., resumed the arguments in this
cause. He contended that the company were not at
liberty to bring into existence any shares beyond the
number necessary to meet the claims of thecreditors, and
were not entitled to take advantage of any technicalities
in the terms of the notes. The plaintiff was a proprietor
at the time that the resolution had been entered into, and
had not infringed the condition plainly, expressed in the
wording of that resolution. He also submitted that the
endorsement on the notes was not in conformity with the
resolution.

His HONOUR said that, before coming to a decision on
this case, he must see the Act of Parliament, the reso-
lution, the advertisement, and the other documents cited.
There were two subjects to be decided upon : the first,
whether the time of sale was fixed in the resolution ;
the other, as to the clauses referred to in the Act of
Parliament, the obj, ct of which was to enable the com-
pany to fulfil their contract with the rateholders.
Neither party could contend that the Act was not in-
tended to apply to the case of the contract. He did not
doubt that the shares were allotted in compliance with
the Act of Parliament. No doubt could exist if it were
absolute, but it was contended that it was conditional.
He did not intend to express the least opinion on the
contract till he had seen all the papers. As aeon as he
had perused them he would deliver judgment.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
_ _ SOWERBY V. THE PONTOP RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. RUSSELL, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that
the object of thii bill was to compel the performance of
ft certain contract that bad been entered into with the
plaintiffs. The defendants were the proprietors of a
railway, entitled the Pontop and North Shields Railway,
which had been originally the property of other parties,
with whom the contract now sought to be enforced was
entered into. The plaintiffs were the proprietors of col-
lieries in the district through which the railway in ques-
tion passed, and the object of the contract had reference
to the transit of their coals, which the original pro-
prietors agreed to convey for a period of twenty-one
years at a low rate of charge. They, however, having
got into difficulties, disposed of the railway to the pre-
sent proprietors, who effected the purchase liable to
performance of the contract, which however they refused
to fulfil on the terms specified in the body of the deed,
but immediately raised their charges, and his clients
now sought to compel them to adhere to the contract.
(The Learned Counsel here read a voluminous corres-
pondence that had taken place between the plaintiffs and
defendants.)
His HONOUR said he considered the plaintiff was en-
titled to claim the specific pet formance of the contract,
and w, uld make a decree accordingly.
The Court rose at the usual hour.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

RIGHT OF WAY-ROBERTS AND ANOTHER V. WILLIAMS.

This was an action brought against the defendant for:
obstructing a private right of way, and was tried before
the Chief Justice at Brecon, when a verdict was found
for the defendant, who had pleaded not guilty, and
denied the existence of the right of way. The case occu-
pied two days, a deal of evidence having been adduced
cn both sides. His Lordship was obliged to leave the
town before the jury came to a decision, in order to
attend the sessions at Mold. The jury were entrusted
to the custody of Mr. Horne, the bailiff, who, when they
became hungry allowed them to have wine and sand.
wiches. They afterwards were allowed to have a re-
gular dinner in the ball, of the court, where letters
and various other things were brought to them. Not
feeling much inclined to come to a decision whilst sup-
plied with such good fare, they had beds made up in the
hall, and next morning were supplied with a public
breakfast. They then expressed a wish to come to a
decision, and agreed to meet his Lordship on the confines
of the county (Denbighshire) ; and on his Lordship's
consenting, they were taken to an inn called, by a strange
coincidence, the " Loggerheads." Here Lord Denman
met them, and although the attorneys of both the plain-
tiff and defendant were present, the counsel and the
principals in the action were absent. The foreman of
the jury (a Mr. Cundiff) inquired of his Lordship if
possession of the right of way, by permission, for 20
years, gave an absolute right for the future. He replied
in the negative. The foreman then inquired if a road
had been used for twenty years without permission, if
that would give a right. He also replied in the negative.
They then found for the defendant. It appeared, how-
ever, that the defendant had used the road for more than
20 years.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now applied for a rule to
show cause why the verdict should nut be set aside, and
entered for the plaintiff. He grounded his application
on the fact that the plaintiff had held possession of the
way for 38 years, and that, according to the construc-
tion of Wm. IV. c. 71, twenty years' occupation, without
interruption, gave an absolute "right of user." Ile cited
authorities in support of this, and held that, considering
the whole facts of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to a
new trial.
Lord DENMAN, at some length, referred to the notes of
the case. It appeared, he said, Mr. Horne was a very
hospitable person, and had treated the jury with consi-
derable kindness ; but the jury, when they appeared be-
fore him in the morning, appeared full of the subject,
and not affected by the good treatment they had re-
ceived. It appeared, also, that Mi's Williams had
asked leave to carry furniture over the road, which was
a very bad one, and that, subsequently, it became the
usual road which they and their friends traversed in
going, to and from the house. The Court would con-
sider the application.

LOCKWOOD V. WOOD.
This cose was tried before Mr. Justice Wightman at
York, when a verdict was found for the defendant. It .
was an action in debt for stallage at the fair held the
manor of Easirgwold, and from which the inhabitants
claimed, by immemorial custom, to be exempted.
Mr. WATSON now moved for a rule to show cause why
a verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff, and a
new trial granted. The Learned Counsel went into a
lengthened argument to show that there was no evidence
of an immemorial custom to erect stalls at the fair free
of charge. lie also contended that such a custom could
not exist.

The COURT took time to consider their judgment.
BUSH V. WEISS.—NOTTINOHAM AND PETERBOROUGH
JUNCTION RAILWAY.
This case was tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge at
the last Exeter assizes, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff for 1001.
Mr. WHITEHURST applied for a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case should not be set
aside and entered for the defendant. The action was
brought by Mr. Bush against Mr. Weis, one of the ma-
naging directors of the Nottingham and Peterborough
Junction Railway, for preparing the traffic tables of the
company. The agreement upon which the action was
founded was made between the sub-committtee,
of which the defendant was one, and the plaintiff, and set
forth that the plaintiff should for the sum of 5004 per-
form the work to the satisfaction of the sub and general
committee, and in addition adduce sufficient evidence
before the House of Commons in support of
the traffic. During the progress of the work
he received the sum of four hundred pounds, and
it was agreed that on its completion the remaining
100/. should be paid. The traffic tables were accord-
ingly prepared; and on the' plaintiff applying to the
secretary of the company for the balance, he received
an answer on the same day t 3 the effect that a meeting
of the shareholders would be convened to decide on the
abandonment of the project, and that as soon as the
accounts were settled a cheque should be drawn to dis
charge the amount. Now, the Learned Counsel sub
mitted that the secretary had no right to bind the
committee by such an admission, and that evi-
dence should have been brought to show that he
did so by the authority of the directors. It was im-
possible for the secretary to say whether the tables
in question were correct or nut. Th., re was no evidence
at the trial to show that such tables were approved of
according to the agreement by the members of the com-
mittee. And the Learned Judge merely left it for the
jury to say whether the work had been properly performed
Now he (Mr. Whitehurst) contended that the traffic
tables were nut completed at all, and that the plaintiff
had not employed one• half the number of persons that
he ought to have done. And he submitted, that if the
company had gone before Parliament the tables would
have been perfectly useless, in consequence of the fre-
quent mistakes which occurred in them. On these
grounds the plaintiff considered he was entitled to a new
trial.
Lord DENMAN considered that no improper evidence
was admitted, and that there was no misdirection on the
part of the Learned Judge who tried the case. He
would suggest, however, that the dispute between
the parties should be referred to two parties.