The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Jan. 14.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in l3anco, at Westminster, before Lord Camp.
bell, and Jcwtice:i Coleridge, WiL!htman, and Erle.)
FELL V. BURCHETT-BEITISH BANK.

This action was brought against a shareholder in the
British Bank, to recover a sum of 331., which the plain-
tiff hail deposited with the bank previous to its failure.
The trial took place before Lord Campbell, at Guildhall,
in December last, when a verdict was taken by c3nsent
for the p'aintiff, with leave to apply to this Court to
enter it for the defendant,

Mr. Poipson now moved accordingly. The bank was
founded under the ith and Bth Viet., c. 139, and the
plaintiff had an account [current with it, the sum in
question being at his credit when the bank closed its
doors. The defendant was a shareholder when the debt
accrued, and still cintinued so. The action wa• for
money lent by the plaint ff to the defendant, and for
money had and received by the defendant for the u,e of
he plaintiff.

Lord Campbell said the first question would be, was
the defendant individually liable
Mr. Phipson—Yes ; whether in addition to hi-, par-
liamentary obliiations, he is liable to be sued directly by
every creditor of the bank.
Lord Campbell—The Court will have no difficulty in
granting a rule to show cau-e, and we should he glad if
you could refer us to any authorities upon the point.
Mr. Phipson said he believed there were no authori-
ties bearirg upon the question.
Mr. Justice Erie observed that the question was
whether an ordinary action of contract lay against a
shareholder in a bank established under the JUnt-stock
Banking Companies Act. In the case of" Stewart and
Graves" it had been held that a creditor must proceed
against the registered officer of the bank, and not against
individual shareholders.
Lord Campbell—The decision there was that they
must proceed by the statutable remedy.
Rule granted.
BEATTIE V. LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAIL-
WAY.

In this action, which was for the infringement of a
patent for a lathe for turning and boring the wheels of a
railway carriage at one and the same time, a verdict
pas',ed for the plaintiff, and a rule way subsequently ob-
tained for a new trial, on the ground of the verdict being
against the evidence and of misdirection by the learned
judge, Lord Campbell, before whom the case was tried.
Mr. Bovill was heard in support of the rule, and Mr.
llindmarsh against it.

Lord Campbell said the Court thought there ought to
be a new trial on the question of novelty, with reL;ard to
which the evidence adduced at the trial was not satisfac
tory. If the finding of the jury on that point should be
in favour of the plaintiff, it would then be for the judge
who tried the case to decide what, in point of law, the
patent was used for.

Rule absolute—costs to abide the result of the new
trial.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before—Lord Chief Juetice Cackburn

and Justices Cresswell and Crowder.)
EX PARTE THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Quain moved tor a rule calling upon the South
Western Railway Company to show cause why a writ
of injunction should not be issued against them, in con-
sequence of what he said was a contravention of the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act. The application was
made on behalf of Mr. Wm. Adolphus Marriott, the
proprietor of an omnibus that plies between the Twicken-
ham station, on the Richmond and Windsor line, to
Kingston, on the London and South-Western line. The
applicant stated that his omnibus commenced running
on the 27th October last, and conveyed passengers, lug.
gage, &c., to the Kingston station, to be conveyed by
the South-Western line. The Kingston station is sur-
rounded 1: a wall and railing, and can be approached
only by passing through the iron gates which formed
part of the railway. On the 15th of November the
applicant was about to approach the said gates with
his omnibus, when the servants of the company refused
to admit the omnibus within the gates, which they shut
against him. This same cour,e of conduct had been pur-
sued down to the present time, and the passengers had
to alight at the gates and carry their lnirgage to the sta-
tion, a distance of 75 ffet. They complained much of
that inconvenience, and on one occasion they lost a train
in consequence of the delay so caused. There were om-
nibuses running from Leatherhead, and also from the
old town of Kingston, to the Kingston station, and they
were admitted within the station yard ; the only car-
nate, public or private, which was excluded being the
applicant's. His omnibus passes through the town of
Kingston, and might so far be considered a competing
omnibus with that running to Kingston. The applicant
furnished great public accommodation to passengers
vell,ng from Twickenham, Teddiagton, and Hampton-
wick, he taking by his omnibus at least 50 persons a day
each way. The act of Parliament said that railway com-
panies should not give any undue or unreasonable pre-
ference to, or in favour of, any particular person or com-
pany, and it was submitted that such preference had
been shown in this case.
Rule granted.
FOWIA V. THE OFFICIAL MANAGER Olt TIE ROYAL