The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-09 00:00:00

SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.

We believe we can offer priority of intelligence
upon a topic which is at this moment of the deepest
possible interest to the inhabitants of the principality
—especially to those who reside westward of Swansea.
A new agreement has been entered into between the
directors of the Great Western Railway Company
and the directors of the South Wales Railway Com-
pany, which secures to the latter company a certain
income to a small amount, and a chance of making
additional profit. This agreement merely waits the
formal sanction of the shareholders to render it at
once operative. There cannot be a doubt that by
this arrangement a great deal of litigation and an
enormous expense will be dispensed with, as we are
cognizant of the fact that the Great Western di-
rectors were determined to avail themselves of
every possible opportunity to break through their
original agreement with the South Wales Company.
This perplexing difficulty having been happily solved,
and the South Wales Company being thus extricated
from the hands of the lawyers, we are further in.
formed that as so much money has already been ex-
pended upon the line westward of Swansea, the works
to Carmarthen will be almost immediately proceeded
with. As the agreement with the Great Western
Company merely comprehends the traffic between
Swansea and Gloucester, the South Wales Company
have determined to progress westward independently
of their powerful English neighbours, and thus the
explanation which we were some time since autho-
rised to publish by Mr. Talbot, M.P., the Chairman
of the South Wales Company, will be verified to the
letter. At all events the shoals and quicksands which
beset the efforts of the directors have by this new
agreement been cleared away, and they are left with
free scope to carry out their intentions, which will
therefore, we should imagine, be so much the. more
rapidly and readily accomplished.-- Welshman.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 8.

(Sittings in thnco, befo►e Lord Chief Justice JERVIS,
and Justices MAULS, WILLIAMS, and TALFOURD.)

SIBURY V. WILKINS.

In this case Mr. IlAwrcuss moved for a rule nisi to
rescind au order of the Chief Justice for setting aside
the judgment in this case. The action was com-
menced on the 15th of February, appearance was
entered on the 24th, and afterwards a judge's order
was agreed to, by which the debt was to be paid by
certain instalments, and the action was to be stayed.
Some of the instalments had been paid. Afterwards
there had been a change of attorney on the part of
the defendant, and a summons was taken out to set
aside that judge's order, and that summons had been
referred by his Lordship to the full Court and came
on to be heard the other day. No intimation had been
given to the plaintiff that that order was intended to
be acted upon until the 12th of September, before
which time, namely, on the 11th, the plaintiff regu-
larly signed judgment, the instalments not having been
paid ; and a summons had been taken out to set aside
that judgment, and the Lord Chief Justice had set
aside the judgment on hearing the facts. The
Learned Counsel now asked for a rule to set aside
that order setting aside the judgment.
The LORD CUIES xnuat say it is rather
a strong motion, Mr. Hawkins, under the circum-
stance.. The plaintiff, however, shall not be pre-
cluded from making his motion after the other motion
in this case has been heard, if it shall then be neces-
sary. The motion must be postponed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, IVoy. 8.
(Sittings in Banco.)

SKINNER V. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY

COMPANY.
This was an action in which the plaintiff sought
to recover damages from the defendants for negli-
gence in carrying him as a passenger for hire, by
reason of which be suffered certain injuries. The de-
fendants pleaded that he was not a passenger on their
line. At the trial before Sir F. Pollock, on the last
Home Circuit, it appeared that the plaintiff had taken
a ticket from the Treasurer of the Printers' Pension
Society, for the benefit of which body an excursion
trip to Brighton had been arranged. At Anerley
the excursionists' ran into another train which had
started from London before them, and had there been
suddenly arrested in its progress by a luggage-train,
the engine of which had broken down. Under these
circumstances, the Chief Baron was of opinion that
there was evidence to go to the jury to show negli-
gence even in the fact of the collision, and a verdict
passed accordingly for the plaintiff.
Mr. BRAMWELL now moved for a new trial, on
the ground of misdirection in this respect. He sub-
mitted that the plaintiff was bound to make out
some specific act of negligence on the part of the
company, and that it was not enough for him to show
merely that an accident had occurred which injured
him. It might be that no precaution could have
averted the accident.

Mr. Baron ALDEBSON.—It might be that it was
negligence h the company to run trains so frequently
that when one stops it is impossible for the next one
to avoid a collision. I think the Chief Baron was
right. _

Mr. BRAMWELL then submitted that the plaintiff
ought to be nonsuited, as he had not proved the con-
tract, as laid in the declaration. He was no passenger
in any train of the defendants, but was a passenger in
the excursion train appropriated to the society ; and,
though he might not be a member of that body, yet,
as he had taken his ticket from the steward, the
company had not contracted with him.
The COURT, however, was of opinion that there was
no ground for the motion. The train was that of the
company ; for it appeared that one of the witnesses
had taken his ticket at the office in the usual way, so
that it was not confined to the Printers' Pension So-
ciety. As to the first ground, it was clear that the
facts proved were evidence to go to the jury to make
out negligence. The rule must be refused.—Rule
refused.

COURT OF BANKRUP7 CY, Nov. 8.
(liiidore Mr. Commissioner FoNELANQuE.)
IN BE OWEN GRAY.

The bankrupt was a builder in Great Tower-street.
A second-class certificate was granted, on the con-
dition that he should execute a bond for the subse-
quent payment to his creditors of a dividend of ss. in
the pound, subject to the discretion of the Court to
enforce the bond. Mr. Lawrance was unsuccessful
in an application to obtain aeertificate without this con-
dition, the Learned Commissioner stating that profes-
sional men who stepped out of their course and ren-
dered themselves liable to the bankrupt law, must
take the consequences. He considered that they, in
some degree, pledged their professional incomes to
their creditors.