The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-21 00:00:00

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.)
RUSSELL V. THE EAST ANGLIAN RAILWAY COMPANY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morn-
ing at some 'taiga' in this (WC, the facts of which we
have already given in detail. The case came before his
Lordship upon an appeal motion, from the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, refusing to commit
the Sheriff of Norfolk and his Under-Sheriff for con-
tempt. We may again state that the facts of the case
were shortly as follows: —The bill was filed on behalf of
the plaintiff and other bond creditors of the East
Anglian Railway Company, for an account of the sums
of money raised under various Acts of Parliament re-
lating to the company; and also prayed a declaration of
the. court to the etiect that the bond and mortgage
creditors were entitled to be paid their debts according to
their scveial priorities. In accordance with a motion
made to that ale:, a person of the name of William
Seppings was appointed manager and receiver of the
cempany's property, ar.d took possession of the railway
and the plant upon it, and until a few months back he
' maint din possescicn. Bef .re the appointment of the
receiver, two creditors of the company sued out execu-
tions—one for above 1,1001. for coals supplied to the
railway, and the other for NU far costs which had been
incurred in the re-investment of certain purchase money
in land; and these executions were placed in the bands
of the sheriff of Norfolk, in order that he might levy
upon the goods of the company. The sheriff' accord-
ingly seized upon seven first-class carriages, six second-
class, and six third•ciass ones, together with other pro-
perty belonging to the railway company. The latter
accordingly made application to Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce that he would order the committal of Edward Roger
Pratt, the Sheriff of Norfolk, and of Frederick Brown
Bell, the Under-sheriff, for a contempt of court in dis-
possessing the receiver of the company of the goods
seized upon. The Vice-Chancellor refuted to make the
order, and the result was an appeal to this branch of the
court.

Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Bethell, Mr. Bacon, and Mr.
Miller appeared in support of the appeal. Mr. R.
Palmer, Mr. Bonney, and Mr. Apsland, of the common
law bar, appeared for the sheriff of Norfolk; Mr. Rolt
and Mr. Toiler for the execution creditors; Mr. Calvert,
Mr. Malins, Mr. Martindale, Mr. Dickenson, Mr. Rogers,
and Mr. Baggelly for other parties.
It was contended, in opposition to the appeal, and in
support of the judgment of the Vice-Charcellor, that the
latter proposed that previous to a decision of the rights
of the parties, the amount levied by the sheriff ought to
be brought into court. This, it was submitted, was a
reasonable proposition, and it was argued, that if the
Lord Chancellor agreed in the justness of that proposi-
tion, the appeal should be dismissed with costs, as the
offer to bring in the money had been made in the Court
below, and had been refused. Another point relied upon
in opposition to the appeal was, that the appointment of
a receiver was improper and impolitic, and was in direct
contravention of the Acts of Parliament relating to the
railway. It was argued, therefore, that under such cir-
cumstances, the sheriff could not be held to be guilty of
contempt of Court in putting the execution in force.
At the conclusion of this motion, and after the Lord
Chancellor had stated his intention to give judgment on
it on this day,
Mr. BETHELL made a new application for the commit-
ment of the Sheriff of Norfolk for a further contempt of
Court, which the Learned Counsel submitted he had
committed on the 9th of the present month, and during
the hearing of the appeal which had just been concluded
—in taking in execution certain carriages, &c., of the
East Anglian Railway Company, when the carriages
formed a train, and were about to start with passengers
for Lynn.
Upon both these motions the LORD CHANCELLOR now
gave judgment. His Lordship, after going at consider-
able length into the facts of the case, directed that the
motion for the committal of the sheriff should stand over
to the second day of next term, at the same time order-
ing him to place the receiver in the same position in
which he was when the sheriff levied execution.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.
The Court then proceeded to hear this appeal motion,
which was specially appointed for to-day. The case
came before the Court upoli appeal from the judgment of
the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, granting a seques-
tration against the effects of the company. The argu-
ments in this motion occupied the Court the whole
morning.
The other Equity Courts took motions to-Jay, none of
which possessed the least point of interest.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
,Sittings in Banco, before Lord CAMPBELL and Justices
COLERIDGE and ERLE.)

11UNFRETS V. BROGDEN, SECRETARY OF THE DURHAM
COUNTY COAL CONPANY.-JUDGDIENT.

Lord CAMPBELL, on coming into court this morning,
delivered judgment in this (wise. He said this was an
action on the case, and the declaration alleged that the
plaintiff was possessed of divers closes of arable and pas-
ture land, yet that the Durham County Coal Company
wrongfully, negligently, and improperly, and contrary to
the custom of wining followed in that part of the coun-
try, worked certain coal mines under and contiguous to
the said closes, and dug for and got certain coals in the
said mines so as to endanger the plaintiff's closes. The
only material plea was not guilty. The case came on to
be tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge at the last spring
assizes for the county of Durham, and it appeared that
the plaintiff was poskessed of the closes described in the
declaration, and that the Durham County Coal Com-
pany were the lessees, under the Bishop of Durham, of
the coals and mines nnder them, but there was no other
evidence whatever as to the tenure or the title either of
the surface or of the minerals. It appeared the ccmpany
had taken the coals under the plaintiff's closes without
'caving any sufficient pillars to support the surface,
whereby the closes had suck and subsided considerably;
thou tthseu ps
apmo npgthe e
sonsurface
thatand the
operationminbeardal h
ns
otad belonged
beeneon_
ducted negligently by the' eompany. The verdict was
entered for the plaintiff for 1104 damages, with leave to
move to enter the verdict for the defendant if the Court
should be of opinion that under such circumstances the
action was nct maintainable. The case was very ably
argued in Easter and Trinity Term last ; and the case
itta kweans
omnetet;dtioc,odntshidaetr, its decision. For the defendant
being one of considerable importance the Court bad
after the special finding of the
jury, the plaintiff was not entitled to have his closes
supported by the subjacent strata; but the Court was of
opinion that that proposition could not be supported, and
that the company was bound to leave sufficient props in
his mine to support the surface soil. The Court had there-
fore to consider whether, when the surface of the land, by
which was here meant the soil lying over the minerals, be-
longed to one man, and the minerals to another, and,
there being no evidence of title to qualify the rights of
enjoyment, the owner of the minerals might remove
them without leaving supports sufficient to maintain the
surface in its natural state. The plaintiff claimed no
greater degree of support for his
in lands than they. en-
joyed since the globe existedits present torm,
Whe
Where
therethe
l
wereawof
several
Englandfreeholdshad
lyinglong adjacent e
to
each other,
degree of collateral support which each might claim
from the other; and a man who had land next
adjoin-
ing his (Lord Campbell's) land could not dig his own
land so near to his (Lord Campbell's) that thereby his
(Lord Campbell's) should fall into the pit dug by the
other, and for that an action would lie. That
doctrine rested on natural justice, and was es-
sential to the protection and enjoyment of
property cn the surface. Where there wets
separate freeholds, where the surface of the land and
the Lmiuerals belonged to different persons, the Court
was of opinion that the owner of the surface, where it
was encumbered by buildings and in its natural state,
was entitled to have it supported by the subjacent mi-
neral strata. For those and other reasons the Court
were all agreed that the present action was maintain-
' able, and that the rule to enter the verdict for the de-
fendant must be discharged.

THE QUEEN V. THE REV. CHARLES BARTON.-CRININAL

INFORMATION.

Sir FEEDERIcK TrtusicEß, said he had to show cause
against a rule, obtained recently by Mr. Hill, for a cri-
minal information against the Rev. Charles Barton, who
is rector of Paxeby, in the county of Lincoln, and one
of the magistrates for the county. The charges on
which that application had been grounded had reference
generally to the conduct of that gentleman, whilst
taking, in the capacity of a magistrate, the dying
declaration of one Robert Thompson, who met his
death in an affray in August of the present year, at
Barton-upon-Humber. The circumstances were these:
—A person of the name of Sanderson, who was resident
at Barton on the 12th of August last, was in bed, when
he heard some person or persons outside his house
throwing stones at his window. He arose from his bed,
went to his window, and saw two persons engaged in
those acts; be remonstrated with them and told them he
would call for the police. The persons outside, how-
ever, continued their violence, on which he partially
dressed himself and was proceeding down stairs, when
his wife recommended bim to take a stick with him.
He was passing his front room, and he hastily snatched
up a poker, and went out to those persons. Some alter-
cation then took place, and ultimately a person named
Robert Thompson, who, it was alleged, but aftewards
denied, was one of the perssons committing that violence,
was struck by Sanderson violently on the head with the
poker. Thompson became insensible•, was carried to
his house, and died on the 21st day of Augusnl
Sanderson was, therefore, immediately apprehended;
and en the 13th of August Mr. Barton, who for sixteen
or seventeen years had been in the commission of the
peace for the county of Lincoln, was met by a person
named Gee, who was clerk to Mr. William Grayburn,
the clerk to the magistrates of Barton-upon-Humber, and
ss as told by him of the assault that bad been committed.
It was stated to Gee, too, that the magistrates who
usually acted in that district were from home, and Mr.
Barton was re qua stead to take the exsuaination against
Sanderson. Mr. Barton agreed to do so, and Sander-
son being brought before ham he afterwards remanded
him to prison until the 19th of August. Mr. Geo told
Mr. Barton, on the 13th of August, that the wounded
man Thompson, according to the medical adviser's
osb iroodsus,,iyi
following.
Io
y,ai
nv improving,eg.h Itae I:(dawmalihsnaattui thought it would
,ot
1) Burtont
hy
say
mwt:tetillye Friday
ygeodr
that Mr. Barton should take the examination of 'Chomp-
frooimi
saxe iy. Saturday,t thhoiulll7,thw,hoitnhehrishe (Br.v,ai
goingß. oan r t oat
day, and that Mr. Gray burn should
meet him at 'l•hompsnn's house at Barton for that pur-
p so. Mr. Barton arrived on the morning of the 19th at
'Thompson's house at the time appointed, but was not so
fortunate us to meet with Mr. Gray burn, the magistrates'
clerk, and after waiting for him a considerable tint.,
proceeded on his way to Hull, intending to make a
fresh attempt to take the examination on his return in
the evening, and he left a message with some of Thomp
son's domestics, that if Mr. Gray burn called they were
to say that Mr. Barton would meet him at Thompson's