The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-18 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Pgge Wood.)

HOLMES V. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

This snit was instituted by Messrs. Smith and
Co., news agent 4, and tiro object of it was to obtain
certain declarations and relief, by way of injunc-
tion, restraining the defendants from removing the
book-stalls occupied by the plaintiffs at the various
stations of the Eastern Counties Railway. In
February, 1856, plaintiffs entered into an agree-
ment with the defendants, whereby they we: e to
have the exclusive right of selling newspitOefelpe-
riodicals, pamphlets, and other publicaticesrlhey
paying to the company a rent of 1,5001. rs, year for the
first five yews, and 2,0001. a year; for the ensiling
five year,, the parcels of the plaintiffs beine, con-
veyed free of charge. The plaitXffscomplainebd that
their book-stall at the Bishopsgate station had been
removed, so as not to be accessible to the passen-
gers waiting for the departing trains, which it was
when the agreement was made, and they likewise
complained of being obstructed in putting up a
book-stall at Bishop Stortford. A number of affida-
vits were read, and it appeared that the plaintiffs
had complained that the company charged the
news agents who lived at the towns on the line too
small a sum for the carriage of their parcels, and
had requested them to charge a higher sum in order
that the plaintiffs might be protected against those
country news agents who entered into competition
with them, though they were not allowed to sell
newspapers inside the stations, and the company
had complied with that request. The defendants,
in their turn, complained that the plaintiffs had
abused their right of sending parcels free by in-
closing in them books which were not intended to
be sold to passengers by the railway, but had been
ordered by booksellers and others living on the line.
The Vice-Chancellor held that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to enclose in their parcels anything
hut books and newspapers intended to be sold by
them on the railway, and he granted an injunction
to restrain the defendants from removing the book-
stall at Bishopsgate, or any other station, from their
position at the time of the agreement was entered
into.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Murphy.)
IN RE EDWARD RAWSON CLARK.
In this case an application was made to issue
execution on the warrant of attorney executed at
the time of the discharge, in 1831, on the ground
that Mr. Clark (who was connected with the turf)
possessed considerable property, and was of
" ability" to pay his debts.
Mr. Red showed cause, and Mr. Sargood moved
to make the rule absolute.

An application was made by Mr. Reed for a proof
of debts. Some creditors had been paid, and a
relea.e had been executed by others. Mr. Clark
was ready to pay into court any sum that might be
found due.

Mr. Sargood said the debts in the schedule were
1,1411., and should be paid into court. Mr. Clark,
in an affidavit in this court in the case of Mr.
Howard, said he was worth 12,0001. over his debts,
and on examination said 90,0001. was the amount
of his property.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy made the'tule abso-
lute, being of opinion that Mr. Clark was of
"ability" to pay, as set forth by the act.
Mr. Reed asked for a week's time, as Mr. Clark
was out of town.

The learned Commissioner saw no reason to grant
any delay. Mr. Clark was no doubt at the Liver-
pool races, and the telegraph would reach him.
The rule to enforce the warrant of attorney was
made absolute.