The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, April2o.
(Before the MASTER of the Ross.)
His Lordship was engaged during the morning with the
further hearing of a part heard-case of " Hallett v. Scott."

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT April2o.
THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY V. THE BIRMINGHAM

AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case, which
was part heard during the vacation, and the argu-
ment in which was continued during the two first days
of the present term. The circumstances were these :
—That under a variety of railway Acts the plaintiffs
were entitled, on or before the month of June, 1845,
to repurchase a moiety of the shares in a certain
tram-road between Gloucester and Cheltenham, for
the sum of 17,5001., after deducting the dividends,
which the defendants should in the meantime receive
from the tram-road, and they were also, on or before
the same time, entitled to purchase that half of the
Gloucester and Cheltenham Railway which lay next
Cheltenham. That if they should repurchase they
and the defendants would become joint tenants of the
tram-road, and each would become the owner of a
half of the railway. The defendants, the Birming-
ham and Gloucester Railway Company, had con-
structed a portion of their railway on this tram-road,
up to the terminus at the basin of the canal, and the
plaintiffs complained that they had thereby altered
the character of the road, and had prejudiced the
dividends, which would affect the interests of the
plaintiffs in case they repurchased the road.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, said
the case of the rival railways stood in this manner :
that the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Com-
pany were entitled to the tram-road in ques-
tion, subject to the right of repurchase, which
might be exercised by the Great Western Railway,
which right had been derived by means of having
purchased the interest which the Gloucester and
Cheltenham Union Railway had in it. The Great
Western Railway had filed this bill for an injunction
to restrain the defendants from laying down rails for
the purpose mentioned; his Honour thought the plain-
tiffs, although their statement was short, had made that
statement with much clearness and truth. He did
not think the mode in which the case had been stated
• was unfair, but the question was, how far their case
was established by the legal right they possessed?
When it was first brought forward, his Honour thought
the thing complained of went to the destruction of the
tram-road itself, and he therefore granted the injunc-
tion ; but it appeared the point was, how far the de-
fendants were justified In doing what they
had done under the terms of the original
Act, by which the tram-road was to be
made and maintained. If they were justified
in doing this under the Tram-road Act, then they
could not be prevented merely because difficulty
might hereafter arise as to the reduction to be made
in the dividends, in case the Great Western Railway
Company thought fit to exercise their power of re-
purchasing. They certainly had a right to re-pur-
chase, but it was not certain yet that they would do
so. In ascertaining what was the amount of reduc-
tion to be made, this Court would have power to take
care the Great Western Railway should not suffer.
There might, perhaps, be relief in the way of com-
pensation, but for that the time had not yet arrived,
and it was useless to speculate upon the fact whether
they would re-purchase or not. The question now
was, whether there was evidence on the affidavits of
an illegal dealing with the tram-road, either in the
shape of waste or destruction, so as to induce this
Court to interfere. It was stated, first, that the de-
fendants intended to break up the tram-road, and
dig up the soil, and remove the rails, and
also that parts of the stone upon which
the rails are laid have been cut away, so
as to endanger the safety of the tram-road ; but, on
the other hand, there were affidavits contradicting
this altogether, stating that the new rails were laid
down quite independently of the old tram-road, and
the stones had only been cut away at the top in order
to leave a smooth surface for the new rails without
endangering the safety of the old rails. On due con-
sideration of the affidavits respecting waste and de-
struction, his Honour's opinion had been removed,
and he did not think anything had been done which
would interfere with the proper existence of the tram-
way in its original state, and ho therefore could not
interfere. The Birmingham and Gloucester Railway
Company were the absolute owners in equity of the
tram-road, and great powers were given by the Act
to the owners of the tram-road. On the fullest con-
sideration, his Honour's opinion was, that the Court
was not authorised to continue the injunction, and as
it turned out, he thought the injunction had been im-
properly granted. He must, therefore, dissolve it,
with costs.
(Before Vice. Chancellor Sir JAmEs NVIGnAm.)
GRIFFITHS V. RICKETS.

His Iloson pronounced judgment in this case, which came
before the Court on demurrer. The object of the plaintiff was
to obtain leave to amend the bill. His Honour said the only
question in his mind during the argument was whether the
statements in the bill were sufficient to show a right to re-
ceive, and for the purpose of deciding this point he referred
at some length to the practice of the Court. Upon one part
of the case he was of opinion that the bill was defective ; but it
had been said that he might obviate that difficulty by record-
ing the original bill. In a case in which he was engaged as
Counsel, and which, like the present, came before the Court
on demurrer, he had pressed that argument on Lord Cotten-
ham ; but his Lordship held that the party was bound by the
statements brought before this Court in the bill demurred to.
He thought there would be some difficulty in applying that
rule m the present case. On the whole he was of opinion that
he should give liberty to amend upon payment of costs.
TILE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. GRESLEY.

This suit came before the Court on further directions. It
related to a certain charity, called " Stanley's charity," at
Nethersall, in the county of Leicester, founded by Sir
Thomas Rich in 1666, and then of the yearly value of 101.
12s. per annum. The property .was leased at that rent to a
Mr. Stanley for three lives, and, subsequently, to the same
family in perpetuity. The property having afterwards in-
creased in value to the amount of 751. per year, proceedings
were instituted, on behalf of those interested in the charity,
which issued in an agreement by which 401. a year was ap-
plied to the charity, while the party renting the estate took
the remainder of the property. The case had been referred
to the Master, who made his report to the Court. His
Honour sanctioned the agreement.