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

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 Hendley,
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 the 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 theappellant had not made out his case. His lordship
refused the injunction and dismissed the appeal with costs.

APPEAL--MINSERGH V. CAMPBELL.
At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel in this
case, the Lord Chancellor reserved judgment.

OOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
:Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell, and Justices White-

man; Crowder, and. HMO
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 gi4n.. 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 ld's side of the case.
Upon the close of the inquity the arbitrators awarded the
sam 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 JUDGE.--lIAMELON V. BAXENDALE
FORD AND CO.)

This was an action brought to recover the sum of £3 155.,
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 went to prove,
that upon one very dark and misty night lately, plaintiff
was in Duke-street, Little Britain. Seeing the road clear,
plaintiff stepped oft the kerb for the purpose of crossing the
road. 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 even now suffered from the
injuries received.

Mr. Swan, for the defendants, said that the accident most
certainly did not arise through either the negligence or
misconduct of ;the defendants' servant. Plaintiff should
have seen that the road was clear before he attempted to
cross.

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 Houghton, 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
TOTle 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-
derate 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 heard that a
judge could not comment. He would, and that always,
when he thought fit.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SERIOUS ASSAULT EY A WAITER AT THE CAFE
CHANTANT.—CharIes Weerse, a waiter at the Cafe Chan-
tent, Leicester-square, was charged before Mr. Beadon with
committing an assault of a serious nature on James Suttree,
a carpenter employed at the cafe.
Edward Ilos, a waiter at the cafe,' said that on Saturday
night, after 12 o'clock, the prisoner, who has been employed
at the cafe for a few months as waiter, quarrelled with Sut-
tree, who was employed doing jobs there. At the moment
he went into the room, he saw Suttree push the prisoner,
and the prisoner immediately struck him a blow in the face
with a dinner plate which he had in his hand, breaking it
in pieces, and causing a large wound in his face, from
which the blood flowed profusely. A medical man was sent
for, and ho was afterwards sent to the Charing-cross Hos-
pital.
Viney, 78 C, said the injured man was a married man,
and handed in a certificate as follows :

"Charing-cross Hospital, Nov. 15.—1 certify that James
Suttree is not able to attend the court to give evidence,
owing to loss of blood.
(Signed) " J. SKEGG, house surgeon."

The prisoner said the other man insulted him, and he
made a remark in reply, but not of such an insulting na-
ture, and told the man to go out of the room, when he
refused to do so, and gave him, a violent blow in the face
and knocked him down, and again assaulted him ; and
having some plates in his hand at the time, he struck him
with one of them.

Mr. Beadon told the prisoner that if he had cut an artery
and the man should die, he would have to take his trial for
manslaughter.

The prisoner was then remanded.