The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL FOR ZUDGMENT.-HARE V. THE REGENT'S CANAL

COMPANY.

The Lord Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said—This
case comes before me upon a petition for re-hearing of an
order of the Master of the Rolls, dismissing the bill filed
by the plaintiff, and refusing an injunction to restrain the
company from erecting or raising any part of their em-
bankment of the canal or dam of the reservoir, at Headley,
either temporary or permanently, higher than 38 feet, as
shown on the deposited Parliamentary plan and sections
thereof; so that either by the overflow of the rivers Orwell
or Trent, or overflow of the water in the canal, the plain-
tiff s surplus lands not taken by the company would be
overflowed or submerged and injured to a greater extent
than they would be if the embankments to be constructed
were only raised 35 feet 9 inches, in terms of flit Act of
Parliament. His lordship reviewed the evidence of the
engineers, and carefully examined the several sections of
the Act of Parliament referred to, and also the plans pro-
duced, and after referring to several decisions of the House
of Lords and Queen's Bench, on the legal construction of
Parliamentary plans, his lordship came to the conclusion
that the appellant had not made out his case. His lordship
refused the injunction and dismissed the appeal with costs.

APPEAL-MANEERGH V. CAMPBELL.

At tho conclusion of the arguments of counsel in this
case, the Lord Chancellor reserved judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,

;Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell, and justices White-
man, Crowder, and Hill,)
EVANS V. COLEMAN.

Mr. Aspland moved for a rule to show why an award
made under certain circumstances should not be set aside.
The plaintiff and defendant entered into an arrangement
for the carrying out certain building operations, for which
an estimate was given. The bill was sent in in excess of the
amount estimated, when it was agreed to refer the
matter to arbitration. Two arbitrators and a referee were
appointed to measure, "survey, and value the work done.
The arbitration was proceeded into without any communi-
cation being given to Evans, while Coleman was called
before the arbitrators, and thus had an opportunity of
fully stating the whole of his side' of the case.
Upon the close of the inquiry the arbitrators awarded the
AIM of £3,200, which was £7OO in excess of the bill sent in.
This fact was one of the grounds upon which he applied for
the rule ; another was, that the umpire, when he was called
upon to exercise his office, did not comply with the terms of
the agreement upon which the arbitration was arranged. It
was expressly laid down that both parties were to measure,
survey, and value ; but when the umpire was called upon
to act, he adopted tbe measurements of the arbitrators, and
thus did not comply with the terms of the contract.
Lord Campbell—Then the arbitrator's award was larger
than the original bill ?

Mr. Aspland—Yes, my lord, by £7OO.
Lord Campbell—You can take a rule on that point.

In the Courts of Exchequer and Common Pleas nothing
of the slightest interest occurred. In the former, Mr.
Bovill occupied the whole of the morning in arguing a case
in which the construction of a ship's charter was the point
in question. In the latter, Mr. Lush was heard at great
length upon a will cose, which only interested the parties
concerned.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)

STREET ACCIDENT.-IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.-MR. SWAN
AND THE TUDGE.--HAMELON V. BAXENDALE

FORD AND CO.)
This was an action brought to recover the sum of £3155.,
damages sustained through being knocked down in the
street by a pony, driven by one of defendants' servants.
The evidence of the plaintiff and his witness wont to prove,
that upon one very dark and misty night lately, plaintiff
was in Duke-street, Little Britain. Seeing the road clear,
plaintiff stepped off the kerb for the purpose orcrossing the
'oad. Defendants' servant (one Shakell) was driving
down the street (a narrow one) at the rate of
seven or eight miles an hour, and simultaneously
with plaintiff stepping off the kerb he was knocked down
by the pony. Defendant immediately pulled up and gave
plaintiff his card. Plaintiff had been an inmate of St.
Bartholomew's Hospital, and oven now suffered from the
injuries received.

Mr. Swan, for the defendants, said that the accident most
3ertainly did not arise through eithor the negligence or
misconduct of ithe defendants' servant. Plaintiff should
have seen that tho road was clear before he attempted to

The person who was driving and a fellow-clerk said
they were only going at the rate of seven miles an hour.
They pulled up directly the pony knocked plaintiff down.
They did not call out. They saw him in the act of step-
ping off.
A person named Houshton, a bootmaker, in Duke-street,
said he did not consider it was Shakell's fault. it was
Almost impossible for defendant to avoid it.
His Honour was of opinion that upon a dark and misty
night such as this was described to have been, it was im-
possible for a person to be too cautious. In a narrow
thoroughfare like Duke-street defendant should not have
gone so fast as seven miles an hour. People who have busi-
ness have a right to cross the road, and it was the duty of
drivers to go slowly in such thoroughfares. He should
give plaintiff a verdict and costs—and he must add that the
case ought to have been settled before, as it was a very mo-
t d erate claim.

Mr. Swan thought his Honour should not have made
such a remark. He had no right to make a comment.
His Honour was astonished that Mr. Swan should make
such a remark. It was the first time he ever hoard that a
judge could not comment. He would, and that always,
when he thought fit.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)