The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

THE NEW APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Roupell, Mr. Anderdon, end Mr. Wigram, were
admittcd within the bar.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 20.

HALL V. FEARNLEY.

This was a case which was tried before Mr. Justice

Wightman two days since in the Buil Court. It was an
action brought to recover damages against the defendant
for having, with his cart, run over the plaintiff, and
broken his leg. The verdict was for the defendant.
Mr. CROWDER now moved for a rule nisi to set aside
The verdict, and to have a new trial granted on the
ground of misdirection -by the Learned Judge, and also
on the ground that the verdict was against evidence.
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.
THE QUEEN V. GREEN.
_ _

In this case a rule had been obtained, calling upon the
defendant to show cause why an information in the na-
ture of a quo warranto should not be filed against him,
to show by what 'authority he exercised the office of a
Town Councillor of the borough of Lichfield.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared to show cause
against the rule. The mail) objection taken by the
Learned Counsel was that the relator was not a good
relator, and not properly qualified, inasmuch as
he had taken part in the election, and had thereby
contributed to the irregularity which was here the
subject of the motion before the Court. It was also ob-
jected that the defendant had not acted as a Town Coun-
cillor after his full space of nearly twelvemonths, and just
as the term Qf his office was about to expire the present
application was made to the Court. The Learned Conn-
sol submitted .-that under these circumstances the rule
ought to be dischirged.
Mr. AIRVIR in support of the rule, contended that
the relator had not taken that part 'in the election
which was now disputed, which would disqualify him
from bringing the case before the Court, inasmuch as
the declaration °administered by him to the defendant
was tendered after the election had terminated. The
Learned Counsel referred to several cases bearing on the
question, in which such interference was not held to dis-
qualify the relator.
The COURT was of opinion that the objection urged
by the Solicitor-General to the rule was a good one, and
must prevail. Their decision was founded upon the
principle that the man who concurred in inducing the
party complained against to do that act, was not the man
who ought to be heard in that Court for the purpose of
turning him out.' If the act was merely a blinisterial one,
the objection might not, perhaps, be of such force, but it
it would appear to be something more. The relator called
upon the defendant to take and subscribe a certain decla-
ration, which would entitle him to act as a Town Coun-
cillor, and the defendant agreed to do that, thereby in-
ducing him to suppose that he had a good title to the
office. The principle upon which their decision was
founded, was based upor, something higher than Corpora-
tion law, and it was that no man could take advantage of
the inconsistent act in which he had concurred. The act
which entitled the defendant to the office, was the decla-
ration he had made—the relator was the party who had
administered that declaration to him, and he could not
now come before the Court to set it in motion against
the defendant for that very irregularity which he him-
self had created. The rule therefore must be discharged,
but without costs.

BREACH OF PROMISE OP MARRIAGE.-DARBON V. ROSSER.
In this case, which excited same interest in the sit-
tings after last Term, and in which a rule had been sub-
sequently -moved for to set aside the verdict, 1,6001.,
found for the plaintiff, on the ground of the damages
being excessive,

THESIGER stated to the Court that his Learned
Friend, Mr. Platt, and himself had agreed to certain
terms, which would save their Lordships the trouble of
having the case again brought before them.
Lord DENMAN expressed his satisfaction at the ar-
rangement.

'

The terms were not stated in the Court, but we under-
stand the arrangement come to was, that the verdict be
reduced to 8501.
RYAN V. LORD KUNTINGTOWER

In this case a rule had been obtained by the defendant
to show cause why the judgment and execution sued out
against him should not be stayed, and a new trial had.
It appeared that an action was brought at the last Bristol
assizes upon two bills of exchange for the sums of 2,6301.
and 1,0691., and a verdict had for the plaiptiff, and it was
with regard to these bills that the present application
was made, and the ground was that the verdict asi sub-
sequent judgment: against him had been obtainedly col-
lusion between the attorney for the plaintiff and the at-
torney for the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL now appeared to show cause against
the rule. The defendant had been taken in execution,
but had been discharged from custody, on undertaking to
pay the money. That was done, and the money had
been raised, and the defendant now sought to have the
money paid into Court, and a new trial had. The affi-
davit of Lord Huntingtower, on which the application
was grounded, set forth that the first time he heard of
these judgments was om.the 22d of Octoar last.
I ord DEsmAN—Must 'la this end in a reference to.
the Master ?

Mr. CRESS WELL said it probably would, but here were
very grave imputations against the characters of pro-
fessional men, and they were most anxious that they
should be publicly investigated and contradicted. The
previous statements of the defendant had somehow found,
their way into the public papers, and he had been strenu-
ously urged by these gentlemen to bring the matter before
the Court.
Lord DENMAN-But everybody is aware that these are
ex parte statements, and when the case is investigated
before the Master, he will report upon it ; and I think
where these imputations are made, it is much better for a
full vindication of character that it should go where all
the facts will be thoroughly investigated.
Mr. CRESWELL understood that Lord Huntingtower
had left the country, and had sold off his property.
Mr. THESIGER said that could not prejudice his
Learned Friend, for the money was now ready to be
paid into Court.
Mr. CRESWELL then proceeded to read the affidsvits
at some length, stating the facts of the case, and com-
menting as he went along. The details were not of pub-
lic interest, further than that the charge of collusion was
distinctly and clearly disproved. The Learned Gentle-
man hoped the rule would be discharged, with costs.
Mr. MILLER followed on the same side.

Mr. THESIGEn was beard in support of the rule, but
in the course of his arguments he was stopped by the
Court, who adjourned the further hearing of the case till
Monday.

JANUARY 19.

THE QUEEN V. THE LONDON AND SOUTHAMPTON RAIL.

WAY COMPANY.

This was an appeal against order of Sessions, im-
posing a certain rate upon that portion of the defendants,
railway, which passed through the parish of Mitchin-
dever, in Hampshire, between Winchester and South-
ampton.
Mr. M. D. HILL now appeired on behalf of the de-
fendants, and submitted that the rate was excessive, the
Sessions having made the rate not only upon the tolls,
but they also added something on the principle of taking
into consideration the advantages the Company enjoyed
from carrying passengers and goods. Now the Sessions
had found that the actuah earnings of the Company
were less than the proportionate earnings of that por-
tion of the line which passed through the parish in
question, but they had shown no grounds for resorting
to these proportionate earnings as the measure of the
rate, it being only resorted to when there was no means
of ascertaining the definite proportion of the actual
earnings, He contended that the whole of the profits
on which the rate could be made was the sum which
a tenant would pay, after making the necessary deduc-
tions for the support and maintenance of the line
It would be necessary to consider what the nature and
object of the Railway Acts were, before ascertaining
what were the hereditaments which were liable to a rate.
The Act recognised the establishment of a statutable
highway, which was to be permanent, and to be used by
the public at their pleasure on complying with certain
conditions. These conditions embraced the payment of
certain tolls, which were not to exceed a certain sum per
mile. There was also a set of provisions regarding the
management and control of the railway, which the Le-
gislature had placed in the hands of the Company, sup-
posing very properly that the parties who had embarked
a large capital in the undertaking, would be most likely
to.conduct it in such a way as would conduce to the com-
fort and convenience of the public, and their own inte-
rests. A power, however, had since been given to the
Board of Trade to give or withhold-their assent, as they
thought proper, to the regulations made by the Com-
pany. The Company had also a power conferred upon
them by their Act, of carrying on the trade of
carriers, which they could not undertake without such
a power. It was contended, on the other side,
that the effect of the Railway Act was to establish
a monopoly, but they had not shown even if there was a
monopoly, that that was any ground for increasing the
rate. The assertion that the Company was liable to
abuse its powers and establish a monopoly, would not
constitute a good ground for laying on an additional rate.
The respondent parish contended that not only had they
a right to lay a rate on the basis of the tolls alone, but
also that the advantage which a lessee of the railway
might be expected to derive from his lease by supplying
power, and carrying upon it, must be taken into account.
If a lessee (they said) was capable of deriving all the
profits which now accrued to the Company from the con-
veyance of goods, cattle, and passengers, such lessee pay-
ing all the expenses incidental to the working of the
railway, then the profit of the whole line might be taken
for the purposes of the rate at 70,0001. per annum at
least, after making all the necessary deductions. The
effect of that statement was that, if by virtue of a person
becoming the tenant of the railway, he became entitled
by the expending of capital necessary to produce that
effect to all the profits derived by the Company as carriers,
something more than the tolls levied should then be rated,
But a party becoming a lessee did not oust the Company
—he did not touch the Company's right to run their
carriages and locomotive engines.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—There is no power to lease
anything but the tolls. Tht Company may carry people
in their own carriages, but it does not authorise the Com-
pany or their lessee to do so. - - -•
Mr. HILL said the proposition therefore was clearly
one which could not be maintained. In the case of the
King v. Cook, which was a case in which the Crown
granted a patent to the ancestor of Lord Lovell, to estab-
lish a light-house at Dungeness, the patentee was
authorised to levy a toll upon all vessels passing within
a certain distance. In that case, it was held by Mr.
Justice Bailey, that the privilege of levying the toll was
not to be taken into consideration in estimating the
value of the freehold for the purposes of a rate. The
Learned Counsel referred to various authorities bearing
upon the question, for the purpose of showing that the
profits of the undertaking were never included in the
rate. The profits of carrying goods and passengers, were
the profits of their trade, as in the case of the Duke of
Bridgewater's Canal and were not rateable. The tolls
constituted the profit of the land, as the tonnage was the
profit of the land in the case of a canal, and was the
only sum upon which the rate was to be estimated. The
Learned Counsel concluded by submitting that the rate
in the present case was clearly excessive, and the order
of sessions ought to be quashed.
After Mr. Kelly and Mr. Gunning (who followed on
the same side) had concluded their arguments, judgment
was postponed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 20.
RAHN V. HARDEN.

This action was brought to recover the amount of a
wager alleged to have been lost to the plaintiff by de-
fendant in a " lawful horse-race." It appears that the
wager really depended upon a steeple-chase, which
the umpire,' Mr. Holyoaks, decided against the defendant,
although he came in first, because he went through a
gate instead of going over it. Defendant, refusing to
abide by the decision, because the gate was open when
he.came up to it, this action was brought, and being tried
at Shrewsbury, the verdict was for the plaintiff. Subse-
quently Mr. Sergt. Ludlow moved for a new trial, which was
refused. He then moved for a rule to arrest judgment,
on the ground that the wager was illegal. The steeple-
chase not being a horse, race, within the meaning of
the Act 3d and 4th 'Victoria, which legalises horse-
races run in any place, if for a sum not greater than 50/.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD showed cause against the
rule ; and, after hearing Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW in reply,
The COURT decided that the steeple chase was, in the
meaning of the Act, a horse-race ; and that, as the
wager depending was not more than 501., it was not ren
dered illegal by not having been run upon a public race-
course. The verdict was good, and the rule must be
reftised.

Jan. 20.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER,
The Court was occupied the whole day with two cases
in the new trial paper, the arguments in which were of
purely technical nature.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS, Jan. 20.
The Judges met this morning in the Exchequer
Chamber, when the following arrangement was made
for the ensuing Spring Assizes:—
Northern Circuit—Justico Wightman, and whoever
may be the new Judge.
Norfolk—Chief Justice Tindal and Baron Parke.
Midland—Lord Abinger and Justice Williams.
Oxford—Justice Patteson and Baron Rolfe.
Western—Justice Coleridge and Justice Erskine.
Home—Baron Alderson and Baron Gurney.
Wales, North and South—Justice Coltman and Jus-
tice Maule.
Lord Denman is to be the Judge who will remain in
town to transact the business at Chambers.

turn to
a wiarsati°PitiLjority
BAIL COURT,
U 0 WARRANTO.
THE QUEEN V. DEIGHTON—Q
Mr. GUNNING applied fora rule nisi for a quo war-
ranto, calling upon the defendant to show-by what right
Jan. 20.
he exercised the functions of an Alderman of Cambridge.
The Learned Counsel was proceeding to argue in support
NeorsaiOn named Long,
of his motion, when he was stopPect by
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, who directed him to apply to
the full Court.
present pcpelrietidoir Middlesexln'aosrrti
3a. a
in
arc
Ag itell
setrates to amend a re-
turn THE QUEEN V. THE MAGIST It A TElniSciesOinFsfoeMrlDhaadDmLaEbniSedEeaXnm.
ap-
plied
Magistrates present ; and,
that no Magistrate,
to keep a tavern. By
tpcholiemlifsmrta:aotnADrudtbienypigt was necessary that all such licenses should
bybe satethdebrysection, it woafstielentlt‘Laegid
ten Magistrates had
being a wineth.oerfivspeiorift-thmeemrcihmadnts,ignshc:uld act on such oc-
ed the license,
majority lied not signed it, but one of
there-
forebe e! el
ann.
actual Inpresent
those who had refused to sign it was a gentleman named
Barlow, a wine-merchant who.
the license had been
who was, in Consequence,
disqualified, and, theref
granted. On an appeal to. the Sessions it was
decided that garlow being dis9aaiiked tbs 3 licence
. ...

y.,-

'~,.~

• 'T

~,
.~-_.