The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

THIS DAY'IS NEWS.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)
The House sat to-day in Committee for Privileges. The
Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftes-
bury, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, Lord Campbell,
Viscount Melville, Lord Rollo, the Marquis of Huntly, the
Earl of Redesdale. and Lord Kenyon.

THE ANNANDALE PEERAGE.
The further arguments on this Peerage occupied their
Lordships the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir JAMES WIGRAM.)
CORY V. THE YARMOUTH AND NORWICY RAILWAY
COMPANY.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case. He said it was
not his intention to express any opinion as to what the rights
of either of the parties were under any Act of Parliament. By
an Act passed in May, 1827, the plaintiff was empowered to
build a bridge over the river Bure, in lieu of a ferry which
had existed there ; and under that Act any one who should
in any manner convey any person, beast, cattle, cart, or car-
riage whatever over the river, within the limits of the ferry,
otherwise than over the bridge, or assist in so doing, was
liable to a fine of 40s. Now he would leave the case en-
tirely open as to whether the plaintiff had not rights in the
bridge co-extensive with his rights in the ferry ; that
was a matter upon which he would pronounce no
opinion. The defendants, it appeared, had been empowered
to make a railway from Norwich to Yarmouth, and the ter-
minus of their railway was on part of the ferry farm. They
had also constructed a basin ; and a dispute had arisen be-
tween the parties, as to whether that basin was within the
river Bure or below its mouth. Across this basin, the de-
fendants carried passengers to and from the railway. The
bill had been filed by the plaintiff, Mr. Cory, who alleged
that his rights had been infringed by the steamer, for the
purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain the defendants
from thus using the ferry. He thought the case should go
to a trial before a jury; and, as it was one which ought to
go perfectly unprejudiced with regard to the interests of either
party, he would not grant the injunction, lest by so doing he
might seem to pronounce an opinion in favour of the plaintiff's
legal right. The terms to be imposed upon the parties were that
they did go to trial at the next Norfolk assizes; and the
defendants must undertake to keep an account of all the pas-
sengers' carriages, &c., which they might convey across the
river, and at the request of the plaintiff they must furnish an
account of the same, and verify the account by affidavit.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN v. THE BISHOP OF RIPON.

In this case a rule nisi for a mandamus was obtained to
compel the defendant to allow an inspection of the registry
of resignations and presentations, and, if necessary, to take
copies or extracts thereof.

Mr. Eimu (with whom was Mr. Hill) now showed cause
against the rule, and contended that the rule should be dis-
charged on two grounds. The first ground of objection
was, that an application was made in this case to Mr. Justice
Williams in the Bail Court upon affidavit, who directed that
the case should be moved in the full Court. The case did
come on in the full Court, but the affidavit was altered, and
tiffs the Court would not allow. The other ground of objec-
tion was that there was no distinct demand of what was
asked for by the rule. The rule asked for an inspection of
the registry, which was a public document, and the applica-
tion made to the Bishop was to see the deed of resignation
and presentation, which were not public documents.
Mr. OGLE (with whom was the Solicitor-General) said
that he moved for the rule in the Bail Court on the last day
of Hilary Term, upon a very lengthy affidavit. Mr. Justice
Williams referred the matter to the full Court, and he having
seen that the affidavit contained a great deal of matter re-
flecting on the character of the Bishop, which was not ma-
terial to the application, had it struck out.
Lord DENMAN said that the Court had decided last term
that a variation of this kind in the affidavit was fatal.—Rule
discharged with costs.