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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
Nothing of the slightest public interest came before
the Court this morning.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
HUNT V. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY-PROHIBITION TO
JUDGE OF COUNTY COURT.
Mr. WORDSWORTH said he was instructed to move for
a rule to show cause why a writ of prohibition should
not issue, directed to the judge of the County Court at
Barnet, in Hertfordshire. He made this application at
the instance of the Great Northern Railway Compact'
and it arose out of a plaint or cause which was tried in
that court on the 24th of February last, and in which
Henry Hunt was the plaintiff and the Great Northern
Railway Company the defendants. He might state
at the outset that the point for the decision of his Lord-
ship arose on the 58th section of the County Court°
Act, the 9th and loth Vic., c. 95. By that section, hie
Lordship was possibly aware, jurisdiction was conferred
on the inferior court in cases of damages and demands.
with certain provisions and exceptions, and in 0010
exceptions were included all questions of title to or
poreal and incorporeal hereditaments, tolls, &c. The
particular case now before his Lordship calve
O,
under the meaning of the word tolls,
it originated out of the following circumstances. IC
appeared that since the opening of the Great Northern
Railway, the company bad carried on a large trade in
the conveyance of coals, and were at this moment bring'
ing coals from South Yorkshire to the metropolis, and
supplying them at 14s. 6d. a ton. Under the Act of In-
corporation there was a clause which required the coo"
pany to convey coals belonging to other persona in the
waggons of other persons on the payment of certain
tolls, the maximum rate of whioh was three farthingo
per ton per mile. The company were also permitted to
make certain other charges, one of which was a charge
of 4id. per mile on the return of every empty waggon'
It appeared that there had been sortie competition be'
tween the company and other parties with regard to the
conveyance of coal from South Yorkshire and Leicester-
shire to London. Hunt, the plaintiff in the case, being
desirous of having some coal brought up from Leices-
tershire, sent ten trucks or waggons to the Peter..
borough station, and required the company to
transmit them to a place called Potter's-bar, *
short distance from the London terminus. The company
refused to do this unless all the charges were previously
paid, including the charge of 4id. per mile for taking
back the empty waggons to Peterborough, after they had
discharged their cargo of coals. Thin refusal gave rise
to an action for damages in the County Court, which,
together with two others of the same kind, came on for
trial on the 24th February. An objection was taken on
behalf of the defendants, that the judge had no jurisdic-
tion in such a case, and, after a trial which occupied
nearly the whole day, the
plaintiff; and
3c9omis.
costs
sdl9eo
]9s. 6d.
anfit
hde. orderfeoaruj
dsufeaod.
mrg
On the 28th of March he gave judgment in favour of th
eat
Thgeehsep deferred
asomsmtae
pinnhat
sustained,
osdyf, dhsa ean3cdidi. s
re•
03:e
5
c
1180sd..,fobreitnhge
a
sfqtjuauosi
question
s,dt
totohonne potathr,yieg titlereo
tuor on :den
rtehtyai
the ntodl
snow
iaicpnhpv lot ihle
involved
Cdf ooaru
nabt
opynr hCofiiubdri
fide
n
had no power to determine. The Learned Counse
of 4d. ht of the company to charge a toll
on the return of empty waggece
was a matter of very serious importance, because they
had no accommodation at the London terminus for the
empty waggons of other parties. It was also of great
consequence that railway companies generally should
know whether or not County Courts had jurisdiction in
regard to questions of title to collect or demand tolls.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said it appeared to him that
the question of title did not come before the Judge Of
the County Court, the parties having admitted that the
company had a right to make the tolls, but only the
question whether the right to receive a payment in a
particular instance had been made out. It seemed that
the company, in order to avoid the nuisance of having
carriages collected at the terminus, had insisted on
being paid beforehand the toll for taking back the
empty carriages. The judge had a perfect right to
construe the company's Act of Parliament, and to say
whether the charges made were such as came within the
meaning of the Ac!. He, therefore, considered that
the judge had decided the question before him correctly.
Rule accordingly refused.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice
JERVIS, and Justices CRESSWELL, WILLIA3I9, allu
TALFOURD.)
The Court was occupied with the demurrer paper this
morning, but the business was entirely uninteresting.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.),
AN ATTORNEY AT FAULT.-EVANS V. SCOULER.
The plaintiff in this action is an attorney, and defer'.
dant is a tailor at Poplar, and the action was brought to
recover the sum of 31. Bs. on a bill of costs.
Plaintiff appeared in person, and Mr. T. B. Hughes as
counsel for the defendant, who suffered judgment to go
by default.
The plaintiff said that one of his witnesses had to
come up by the railroad, and asked fora short adjourn•
meat.