The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-05 00:00:00

parties, the right in the meantime being conceded with-
out prejudice. Mr. Carter, the solicitor to the London
and North-Westera Company, in reply to the notice
from the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company,
stated on the 27th of November that the company had
been advised that under the agreement made by the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company with the Great
Western Company and the other proceedings of the
parties the special powers given the company under the
Stour Valley Act of 1847 had ceased, and that it was
the intention of the company
.to resist by all lawful
means any attempt to exercise those powers. And, in
order to afford every reasonable facility for obtaining a
speedy decision upon the question at issue, they sug-
gested that the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company
should file a bill and move for an injunction to
restrain the London and North-Western Com-
pany from preventing them using the line in
the terms of the Act, the London and North-
Western undertaking to admit that they resist
such use, and the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Com-
pany undertaking to produce the arguments in question,
and all other documents affecting the matter. Between
the 27th and 29th of November some letters passed be-
tween the solicitors on both sides respecting the intention
of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company to book
passengers and to run over the Stour Valley line with
engines and carriages. On the let of December the ex-
ecutive committee of the Shresbury and Birmingham
Company submitted a proposition to the London and
North-Western Company to the effect—" That the exer-
cise of the right of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham
Railway Company to use the Stour Valley Railway be sus-
pended without prejudice for a month, the London and
North-Western Company undertaking forthwith to bring
the objection raised by them to that right before the Court
for adjudication by injunction or otherwise, and to open
forthwith and work for public use the Stour Valley
Railway between the joint station at Wolverhampton and
Birmingham." The Shrewsbury and Birmingham Com-
pany undertook, if the first proposal be not accepted,
to suspend in like manner until after Monday, the Bth
inst., the exercise of the same powers under any circum-
stances. On the 2d of December Mr. Carter, the soli-
citor to the London and North-Western Company,
stated in reference to the course adopted by the Shrews-
bury and Birmingham Company on the let inst. to force
a passage over the Stour Vailey line, that nothing but
the presence of the Mayor and magistrates and of a body
of police prevented them from carrying their threatened
violence into execution, and that certain loss of life must
have been the result. Tbat before they could run their
engines and carriages on the Stour Valley line it was
therefore absolutely necessary that the extent of their
alleged rights should be ascertained by an appeal to the
law. Mr. Roy, the solicitor of the Shrewsbury and Bir-
mingham, in a letter dated the 3d December, complains that
the solicitor of the London and North-Western Company
had misrepresented the conduct of the Shrewsbury and
Birmingham Company on the Ist instant, stating that
the latter company had given sufficient notice of their
intention to run over the line, to enable the London and
North-Western Company to move the Court of Chancery
to restrain them from exercising the right, and that in-
stead of doing so they chose to threaten them (the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company) with violence in
case they carried on their traffic from Wolverhampton.
Under these circumstances, the company had no alter-
native, rather than risk the public safety, but to abstain
from carrying on the traffic of the district and to call in
the aid of the magistracy and police while they formally
asserted their right. Ho concludes by stating that since
the London and North-Western Company persist in
keeping the Stour Valley Railway closed, the Shrews-
bury and Birmingham have gone further, and met them
with an offer to suspend their right of using the Stour
Valley Railway, if the London and North-Western will
carry the public themselves.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Dec, 4.
MOORHOUSE V. COLVIN.

This cause, which was partly opened yesterday, was
resumed.

Mr. Roupell and Mr. Toiler were for the plaintiff,
Susan Moorhouse.

The object of the bill was to obtain from the Court a
decree, setting up a marriage contract in the nature of a
covenant, entered into by Peter Cochrane, the testator,
who had been resident in India for many years, and
whose rank there was equivalent to that of general in the
army, he being first member of the Medical Board at
Bengal. He married a native woman, named Baba
Begum, in 1800, and the result of the union was the
plaintiff. In 1808 Dr. Cochrane married a lady named
Fearon, by whom he had issue two children, Peter Coch-
rane and John Cochrane. lie brought the plaintiff up
in the same manner as his other children, and sent her
to England for the purpose of education. Upon his re-
turning to this country, in 1818, he took up his resi-
dence in Scotland, where the plaintiff resided with him
for some time. By a will, datedin Dec., 1818, he made pro-
vision for the plaintiff's mother, and gave to the plaintiff
a lac of Sicca rupees—equivalent to 12,6001. sterling. He
afterwards sent the plaintiff out to India, and placed her
under the charge of Dr. Thomas. He was very desirous
that she should form a matrimonial connexion, and,
upon proposals being made by Ensign Moorhouse, he
authorised a communication to be made to that gentle-
man to the effect that upon the marriage taking place he
should receive 2,0001., nor should that be all, she (the
plaintiff) was and should bo noticed in his will, but to
what amount, from the then low state of interest, he
could not say. He also expressed a wish that the amount
to be given should be settled upon the lady. The mar-
riage took place. The testator had stated to various
persons at different times that he intended to leave the
plaintiff a lac of rupees. By his last will, made on the
14th of October, 1829, he left his property, amounting to
between 200,0001. and 300,0001. to his two sons, Peter
and John, upon their attaining 25; but in case they died
before or without issue, then he left it to the issue of the
plaintiff's marriage. Both sons have since died, without
issue. The present bill was filed to enforce what was
contended by the plaintiff amounted to a covenant on the
part of the testator, which bound his estate.

Mr. JAMES appeared for the husband of the plaintiff.
The MASTER. of the ROLLS, without hearing Mr.
Roundell Palmer, who was for the defendant, said he did
not consider that there was such a contract as the Court
could enforce, and must dismiss the bill, but without
costs. The defendant to hare his costs out of the estate.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 4,
(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)
IN RE JOHN BERNARD BURKE.

This insolvent, described as an heraldic and general
author, and a barrister, applied to be discharged.
Mr. J. MORGAN appeared on behalf of the assignees of
Mr. Churton, the bookseller, who has recently become
bankrupt.
Mr. COOKE, for the insolvent, objected that the par-
ties for whom Mr. Morgan appe.ared were not creditors,
and therefore could not appear. The debt arose upon
bills, and it might be that not a single bill was in Mr.
Churton's hands or those of his assignees, in which case
they would not be creditors.
Mr, MORGAN said some of the bills had been proved,
and consequently the estate was injured to the extent of
those bills. _ _

Mr. COOKE replied that at present no dividend had
been paid, and consequently the estate had not been
damnified.
The Learned COMMIS'IONER said his impression was
that no debt had been proved.
Mr. MORGAN then called Mr. Churton, who stated that
independently of the bill transactions there was a book
debt due to him from insolvent for printing to the extent
of about 1501. He held 400 copies of a work which was
sold at two guineas, but, as it was of a peculiar charac-.
ter, he could not say what the real value was.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS considered a sufficient
debt had been shown to give the assignee a locus standi.
Mr. MORGAN was not desirous of pressing any-
thing against the insolvent, but his clients wished to
know whether the insolvent would consent to appro-
, priate any portion of his future earnings to the payment
' of the debts.
Mr. COOKS remarked that the profits of a literary
man were too vague to base any proposition upon them.
The insolvent had laboured hard to liberate himself
from the burdens which he had incurred from his father.
The insolvent, upon being questioned, said he was
in receipt of 201. a month for editing certain works, but
out of that he had to pay a clerk 1001. a year ; and, be-
sides, his health had been so shattered that ho was al.
ways in the doctor's hands. Therefore, he could not
undertake to set aside any sum without exposing him-
self to fresh difficulties.
Mr. COOKE drew the attention of the Court to the fact
that the insolvent's own debts were only 3001., although
his means had been drawn upon largely to meet his
father's liabilities.
The insolvent said at his father's death he was left
encumbered with 2,0001. of debts, besides bill transac-
tions, of which he had paid 1,6001 His debts were
6,000/., of which 5,000/. were liabilities of his father.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS thought there was no
reason to refuse the insolvent the discharge he asked for,
and there was nothing in the case in any way to affect
his honour. The cause of the insolvency was self-
inflicted, but springing from certainly the purest sources.
The insolvent was ordered to be discharged forthwith.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. James Solyman Davis, a dealer in plate, watches,
jewellery, &c., of 14, Dalby-terrace, City-road, was
brought up on a warrant before Alderman Cubitt,
charged with obtaining on credit 20 silver watches and
other goods from Messrs. Holland and Co., within three
months of his bankruptcy, under colour and pretence of
carrying on business, and dealing in the ordinary course
of trade, with intent to defraud the said Messrs. Hol-
land and Co.
After some discussion as to the amount, the Alderman
fixed the bail in two sureties of 250/. each, and prisoner
in his own recognizance of 6001, with 24 hours' notice.
The prisoner was then remanded.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Edward Clarke, a surly-looking man, was brought
up for final examination, charged with nearly killing his
wire by striking her on the head with a hammer. The
prisoner was fully committed.
Richard Anthony Knight, collector in the service of
Mr. B. Nichol!, shirtmaker, Regent-circus and Lombard-
street, was charged with embezzlement. The prisoner
was fully committed.