The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-31 00:00:00

COMPANY.

Lord Campbell delivered the judgment of the
Court in this case. The gross earnings of the canal
in the respondent parish were £lB5, and the ques•
tion was whether the expense of maintaining two
locks in the respondent parish, amounting to £lO5,
was to be deducted from the gross earnings in that
parish in ascertaining the rateable value, or whe-
ther that expense ouiht to be thrown upon the
whole line of the canal. His lordship, after review-
ing the case, said the judgment of the Court was in
favour of the latter view. He then observed that
there was considerable difficulty in applying the
rule laid down in the Parochial Assessment Act to
canals and railways passing through many parishes ;
and the Court had hoped that the Legislature
would have relieved it from the difficulty by laying
down rules of rating more applicable to a species
6f property rapidly increasing in amount which
did not scorn to have been in contemplation when
the Parochial Assessnient Act passed. But the
Legislature declining to interfere the Court had
been driven to dispose of all those cases in the
best manner they could, and they saw no aggra-
vated difficulty in applying to them, whether the
companies were carriers themselves, or received
their profits in the shape of tolls for using the
means of conveyance which they furnished to the
public, without furnishing the vehicles to convey or
the moving power. For the reasons stated the
judgment of the Court was in favour of the
respondents.

THE QUEEN V. STEELE AND ANOTHER.
In this case the Court had granted a rule calling
upon the publishers of the Carlisle Journal to show
cause why a criminal information should not be
filed against them for a libel published in the
Carlisle Journal, imputing to _Messrs. William
James and John Fawcett, two magistrates, that
they had been actuated by corrupt motives in the
execution of their office. The libel complained of
arose out of a dispute which had taken place be-
tween the inhabitants of Carlisle and the trustees
of the Carlisle and Penrith Turnpike-road, who had
recently erected a toll-bar near Carlisle, so as to
intercept the traffic between the town and railway.
The turnpike-gate had been broken, and many of
the inhabitants had refused to pay the toll, being
advised that it was illegal ; but the prosecutors,
who were two of the trustees of the road, and also
magistrates, directed a police officer to be placed at
the gate, with orders to prevent any breach of
peace, but not otherwise to interfere. Upon this
the defendants published the articles complained
of, imputing to the prosecutors that in what they
had done they had been influenced by corrupt
motives, and acted under feelings of irritation.
Subsequently, on the application of the prosecutor's
attorney, the defendants retracted the imputation
of corrupt motives, butt they reiterated the charge
of acting from feelings of irritation.
Mr. S. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Manisty, Q.C.,
now showed causetagainst the rule at considerable
length, and entered into a long history of the local
dispute, as set forth in their affidavits, which they
said showed that there was no ground for the in-
terposition of the police, inasmuch as the gate had
been broken merely in the assertion of a right, and
there was otherwise no ground for apprehending a
breach of the peace. The town-council had taken
the opinion of counsel, and were advised that the
toll-gate was a nuisance, and that steps ought to
be taken to abate it. Th• learned counsel contended
that the article in question, since the allegation of
corrupt motives had been withdrawn, contained
nothing which was not well justified by the facts.
In tho course of the argument,
Lord Campbell suggested that the defendants
should now withdraw all imputation of corrupt
motives, and pay the costs of the present rule.
That would be a good test of their sincerity.
This having.been done,
Lord Campbell said that the most ample latitude
was allowed in commenting on the opinions of
judges, who ought not to be acute in criticizing the
terms employed ; but it could not be allowed that
corrupt motives should be imputed to them.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Wetherall appeared
in support of the rule.

Rule discharged on payment of costs by the de-
fendants.

THE QUEEN V. STORRAR.

In this case a rule had been granted calling upon
Dr. Storrar to show cause why an information, in
the nature of a quo warranto, should not be exhi-
bited against him, to show by what authority he
exercised the office of member of the Medical Conn-
of the University of London.

The Attorney-General (with whom was Mr.
Wellsby) now appeared to show cause against the
rule, and said 1)r. Storrar had been appointed by
the Senate of the University, which consisted of a
Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Fellows ; and the
question intended to be raised was whether the
members of the Medical Council were to be
elected by the Senate only, or by the Senate in
conjunction with the Graduates of the University.
The question turned on the construction to be put
on the terms of the last charter, and the only doubt
he (the Attorney-General) had was whether the
question ought to be argued now, or whether it was
of sufficient importance to be argued on a return to
the writ.

Lord Campbell thought the question was of very
great importance to all the graduates of the Uni-
versity of London, which had already become a very
distinguished body.
The Attorney-General said the question was cer-
tainly one of great moment, if their lordships
thought fit the question should be raised on the
record. and

The rule was accordingly made absolute.
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., and Mr. Littler, ap-
peared in support of the rule.
Lord Campbell said the Court would give every
facility for having the question heard and disposed
of at the earliest opportunity.--Rule absolute.

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
Lord Campbell left the Court at -haltpast two
o'clock, in order to attend in the Court of Criminal
Appeal. His lordship gave notice that on Monday
(this day) Mr. Justice Erle would sit in the Bail
Court and take motions, Monday being the last day
of Hilary Term.

THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE REV
ALFRED POOLE V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER

SURT-JUDGMENT.

In Michaelmas term Mr. Bovill obtained, on the
part of the Rey. Alfred Poole, a rule calling upon
his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue command-
ing him to make or cause to be made, an inquiry
into the matter of the appeal of Mr. Poole, accord-
ing to the provisions of the statute Ist and 2d Vic.,
cap. 106, and to hear the said appeal, and to decide
upon the merits thereof.

'The Attorney-General, Dr. Twiss, and Mr. Sum-
ner appeared on the part of the Archbishop of
Canterbury; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Dr. Phillimore, and
Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the Rev. A. Poole.
The Attorney-General having shown cause
against the rule,
Lord Campbell, after conferring with the other
learned judges, said—We think the mandamus
must go, and that there shall be a hearing. All we
have to consider is, whether there has been a hear-
ixg. There has, in my opinion, been no hearing,
and therefore the rule must be made absolute, so
that the Rev. A. Poole might have a hearing.' I
give no opinion as to the form in which that hear-
ing should be. The archbishop, I have no doubt,
will have most excellent advice, and have no doubt
now the hearing will be satisfactory, and that
justice will amply be done to all parties. The rule
must be made absolute.
The other learned judges concurred.

BAIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Sustiee Erie.)
TYACK Y. DANIELL.

Mr. F. Russell moved for a rule nisi on the part
of Mr. Daniell, the defendant in a plaint originally
entered in the County Court of Redruth, to set
aside an award by arbitrators to whom the matter
was referred. The learned counsel based his appli-
cation on three grounds—first, that the arbitrators,
after one of them had promised Mr. Daniell's attor-
ney not to proceed on a certain day when he could
not attend, had heard Mr. Tvack and his witnesses
ex parte; secondly, that at a subsequent meeting,
on the 23d•Dec., Mr. Daniell applied for an ad-
journment to enable him to call two witnesses—
Mr. Pryor and Mr. Downing, whom he believed
would contradict Mr. Tyack in certain statements
which were not true, and had come upon Mr.
Daniell by surprise, and that the arbitrators p7o-
ceeded to make their award on the next day, with-
out hearing those witnesses ; and, thirdly, that the
award was not final, as it did not notice Mr.
Daniell's claim of set-off in respect of some shares
in a mine which Mr. Tyaek was bound, but had
failed to deliver.

Mr. Justice Erle—You may have your rule at
your peril.
Rule nisi granted.
TVv or three other motions having been disposed

of, and a great number of attorneys sworn on a—fl-
mission, the Court rose at half-past 11 o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Banco, Hilary Term.)

GARTON V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
In this case Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., showed cau sc
against a rule for an injunction, under the Railway
and Canal Traffic Act, enjoining the defendants not
to charge the plaintifffor the collection and delivery
of goods from Bristol, .the plaintiff, as a carrier,
doing that for himself. The learned counsel con-
tended that the carriers made great profits on
packed parcels, and had, in fact, eight parcels out
of twelve carried for them for nothing as packed.
parcels. The charge made was for the carriage of
goods from terminus to terminus, and no charge was
made for the collection or delivery of the goods.
The Court, without calling on Mr. Collier to sup-
port a rule, said the rule must be made absolute..
It was a great pity that some of the facts state
had not been brought before the Court in Baxeia-
dale's case, which determined this.—Rule absolute.
THE RHYMNEY RAILWVY COMPANY V. THE TAIT