The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—HEREFORD, AUG. 7.
Special Jury.—(Before Baron ALDERSON.)
THE MONMOUTH CANAL COMPANY V. HARFORD.
This was a case of considerable importance to railway
proprietors. It was an action of trespass by the plaintiffs
against Messrs. Harford and Co., who are extensive iron-
masters in Monmouthshire, for laying a tram road across
the railway belonging to the plaintiffs.
The defendants pleaded Not Guilty on many special pleas.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (who came special) stated
the plaintiffs' case. The present action was one of more
than common importance, involving the very existence of a
Company which had been in being above forty years, and
had conferred the most substantial benefits on the county
of Monmouth. If the defendants should succeed in the
enterprise, which had led to the inquiry in which they were
now engaged, if they should obtain a verdict, the utter ruin
of the plaintiffs must be the inevitable result—their profits
would be at an end—heavy liabilities would be thrown
upon them, an&it would no longer be possible for them to
maintain those means of internal communication which had
been so beneficial to Monmouth and the adjacent counties.
Messrs. Harford and Co., the defendants, were iron-
masters of very great opulence and respectability, members
of the Society of Friends, who had possessed, for many
years, large iron works at a place called Sirhowy, near the
Company's railway. To and from this iron work a large
quantity of iron and lime was annually conveyed along the
Company's railroad, and the Messrs. Harford paid the
Company near 3,0001. for the transport. But about ten
years ago Messrs. Harford thought it would be very con-
venient to save this sum, and conceived the project of
making a railway of their own, by which they should be
enabled to convey the materials without the assistance of
the Company, and so supersede their railway. Regardless
of their own obligations, as parties to the formation of the
Company's railway, and to the heavy liabilities under which
the Company lay in the event of their being disabled by
decline of custom, from keeping it in repair, they proposed
to carry a railway from their works at Sirhowy to their
lime works at Trevil, and thence to the Brecon and
Abergavenny Canal, whereby they would be able
to reach Newport, their shipping port, without carrying
one ton of iron along the Monmouthshire Company's rail-
way. Now all that the Company charged for conveyance
was five farthings a ton, which afforded them a very mode-
rate return. There was one difficulty, hawever, in the way
of this enterprise of the defendant's which was quite insur-
mountable ; the Monmouth Company's railway ran between
the Sistowy Works and the points which they wished to con-
nect with them by the projected railway, and without cross-
ing that railway they could not possibly effect their cherished
enterprise. Now there was a section in the Act 42, Geo.
111., the 116th, expressly prohibiting " the crossing of the
railway, except for convenient occupation of the adjoining
land," on which exception, no doubt the defendant relied.
The defendants, if they could only get over this clause in
the Act, if they could only get over the Monmouth Com-
pany's railway, knew they would make a fortune ; to this
point they therefore bent their faculties. The defendants
had put numerous pleas on the record. Besides the general
issue, there are five pleas admitting the trespass, but
justifying it on the ground of the convenience to the
neighbouring lands of allowing the carriage of minerals
across the plaintiffs' railway. The Learned Gentleman
called numerous witnesses ; but their evidence being illus-
trated by plans and models, it is impossible to give an out-
line of it.
Mr. MAULE, for the defendants, contended that the
action was not maintainable by the plaintiffs in its present
form, because they had only an easement themselves in the
soil ; and others, who were in the habit of crossing and re-
crossing, were equally in possession with the plaintiffs.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs.
This was the last case at Hereford.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Auo. 11.
On Saturday the Commission was opened here by Mr.
Baron ALDERSON and Mr. Justice WILLIAMS. The busi-
ness was heavy, as usual, there being thirty causes, and
above ninety prisoners for trial. The Courts were opened
this morning for business, at nine o'clock.
(Nisi Prius Court, before Mr. Baron ALDERSON. )
CRIM. CON.—JAMES V. EIDDINOTON.
This was an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's
wife, to which was added a count in trover for certain arti-
cles carried off by the wife, and in possession of the defend-
ant. Plea, the general issue.
The plaintiff had formerly been master of one of the na-
tional schools at Park-end, in the Forest of Dean. The
defendant was a person in the same station, with some little
property in houses. The plaintiff had been twice
and had children by his first wife, who died in 1817 , in '