The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-17 00:00:00

LAW IN TEL LIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY')
s B.
Nothing of the(Sittin slightegstin pubanc lic interest came before
the Court this morning.

BAIL. COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
N. 0
HUNT U. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY—PROHIBITI`'"

JUDGE OF COUNTY COURT.
Mr. WORDS WORTH said he was instructed to move fid a
rule to show cause why a writ of prohibition O'c'uot
not issue, directed to the judge of the County Court of
Barnet, in Hertfordshire. He made this applicatica
the instance of the Great Northern Railway Comlfta
and it arose out of a plaint or cause which was trience
that court on the 24th of February last, and in fol'l.o
Henry Hunt was the plaintiff and the Great Northe to
Railway Company the defendants. He might stag,
at the outset that the point for the decision of his 1110
ship arose on the 58th section of the County. Curti
the 9th and 10th Vic., c. 95. By that section, cc!
Lordship was possibly aware, jurisdiction was conferrcio,
on the inferior court in cases of damages and &into
with certain provisions and exceptions, and in t"-,r
exceptions were included all questions of title to 'r,,
oe
poreal and incorporeal hereditaments, tolls, &c.
particular case now before his Lordship cli—nei
under the moaning of the word tolls, slt
it originated out of the following circumstances
appeared that since the opening of the Great North in
Railway, the company had carried on a large Iroae•
the conveyance of coals, and were at this moment brivora
ing coals from teouth Yorkshire to the metropolis, Icy
titan suppl)ieg tie at 14s. ed. a ton. Under the Act 0103'
corporation there was a clause which required the-t CO„e
pauy to convey coals belonging to other persons in
urn
waggons of other persons on the payment of ce,r,:„,e
tolls, the maximum rate of which was three farti-l'ci to
per ton per mile. The company were also pernaitte
wake certain other charges, ono of which was ch5,,,a,
of 4id. per mile on the return of every empty waPbe,
It appeared that there had been some competition 00
tween the company and other parties with regard tafrete
conveyance of coal from South Yorkshire and Leice"ivg
shire to London. Hunt, the plaintiff in the case, be,eo•
desirous of having 80M0 coal brought up from Pell
et'
tershire, tershire, sent ten trucks or waggons to the Pet to
borough station, and required the company
transmit them to a place called Potter's-01.'0,
short distance from the London terminus. The comPtly
refused to do this unless all the charges were previl4
paid, including the charge of 41d. per mile for tatj
back the empty waggons to Peterborough, after chef ',co
discharged their cargo of coals. This refusal gave
to an action for damages in the County Court, will;
together with two others of the same kind, came on
trial on the 24th February. An objection was taken c• of the defendants, that the judge had no juris7acd'
tion in such a case, and, after a trial which occarv,
nearly the whole day, the judge deferred his deas;,°be
On the 28th of March he gave judgment in favour °I 'O,
costs
901.. 6thde. foreau damagesscause.
The sustained,
tom
anp
y bad and :rhei:
plaintiff, and made an order for the payment of 531 13/.
fll!isOsdse..d, f beingotro tphaey 391, 19,.
said the right of the and now applied for a prohibit
tion, on the. ground that the case involved a bong, crt
question of title to certain tolls, which the County v°"-ae
had no power to determine. The Learned COO"
of 4icl. „ to)
company to charge %as
on the return of empty vingb f
was a matter of very serious importance, because fbibee
had no accommodation at the London terminus for .0
empty waggons of other parties. It was also of gruela
consequence that railway companies generally o'3-0
know whether or not County Courts had jurisdiction
regard to questions of title to collect or demand toll°,'ol
Air. Justice COLERIDGE said it appeared to him* tvof
the question of title did not come before the Judebe
the County Court, the parties having admitted that 038
company had a right to make the tolls, but onli,
question whether the right to receive a payment :Ibat
particular instance had been made out. It seemed
the company, in order to avoid the nuisance of hal'oe
carriages collected at the terminus, had insistenttio
being paid of
the toll fur taking back, to
empty carriages. The judge had a perfect righ''
construe the company's Act of Parliament, and t° the
whether the charges made were such as came withiab'
pt
meaning of the Act. H ,
Ile, therefore, considered ',la
the judge had decided the question before him correct I'
Rule accordingly refused.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAl(:rio
(Sittings iu Banco, Wore the Lord Chief Juste,
and Justices CRESSWELL, WILLIAMS, -
TALFOURD.)
r tlO
The Court tuns occupied with the demurrer par-
morning, but the businc•ss was entirely uninteresting'

A V./
SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS
(Before Mr. Under-hheriff BuuctlELL.)l
AN ATTORNEY AT FAULT.—EVANS U. ScoULZB: for
The plaintiff in this action is an attorney, and (.I°,l to
dant is a tailor at Poplar, and the action was broug'
recover the sum of 3/. Bs. en a bill of costs. 1, 9 0
Plaintiff appeared in person, and Mr. T. B. lieg-e o
counsel for the defendant, who suffered judgment t°
by (If fault.
(It°
The plaintiff said that one of his witnesses 135 0.
come up by the railroad, and asked for short adjuur
meat,