The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-07 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 4.

THE QUEEN V. THE DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHASItTON
RAILWAY. .

This was an appeal against a rate for the relief of the poor
of the parish of aletebeldever, in the county of Southampton,
by which the defendants were rated at the sum of 4,320/., by
a rate of which the following is a copy:—" London and South
IVestern Railway Company, railway four miles and * half,
4.3201." Ihe defendants appealed to the sessions, where the
rate was confirmed, subject to a case. When hiought up to
this Court, it was admitted that the rate could not be sustained
to the extent of 4,3201., but the question was whether it was
to be reduced to 3,8001. or to 1 400!
The case had been argued in the Hilary term, by' the Soli-
citor-General, Mr, Gresswell, and Mr. Smirke in support of
the rate, and Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Gunning,
for the Directors of the Company. The Court took time to
consider the judgment, which was now prayed by Mr. Hill.
Lord l)ENataN d.liyered judgment, deciding in favour of the
rinciple of ratit* adopted by the parish, and reducing the
rate to the sumo te3,6oo.—Judgment accordingly,
JNNE
TUE QUEEN v. sTAILUE&S.

This was en indictment which had been preferred by the
rarish-offiters of Witham, aga;,mit the defendant John tf•tam-
mere, an inhabitant of that tOsvn, for a aluis•nce. The nuisance
' consisted in an entaoachun ut on the public footway of the
Ilighrstreet of the town of Witham. by the erection of an
iron-railing in .he trout of his dwelling-house, situate
in the High-atrt et aforesaid. The inoictment came
cu tor trial before Mr. Bann Gurney in the country,
ctt•A the jury rt tumid a verdict in favour of the prosecution on
certain of the counts, and in favour of the defewant en certain
other of the counts. 1 he defendant then, removed on, portion
of the fence, aid left the retnaticier and coping of the whole
standing. He rettmAt to ren.ove the remaintier, saying he bait
removed that he was required to remove by the verdict of
tha jury, Under these circumstances, the judgment of this,
Court was prayed for.
The Cou.ir having heard Mr. Platt and Mr, Chambers for
the defendant, and Mr. Thesiger for the pro-aecutors, decided
that the defendant had no.t abated the nutbance, and that he
mu=t remove the fence. a,greealpy to the terms of the verdict.
Mr, Pit A rk hoped the. Court would give judgment of pro.tra- '
tion, and'. call upon the Sheriff, under the di, ection of the
prokecutm s, tw. prostrate the 'whole of what they
consider, d the nuisance at their own risk. 1 he
defendant had already removed a great deal na.)re than he

thought he had a ight to do, and he realls WaS at a log le
Lnow what it wa, th, pros.,cut ors d, :'red.
•'"• 1 iis.s7G "*.a wlr!
'iv— .::t". l' taice i!at; 4,' `l,ll 'le
leodata, to the ,erchni. of the itny. for the urpoae e.reit,
rouraig to put the pno:iecuto;s to expense, and he trust,'" tha
under the circumstances, the Court wouLt think it right to ra°
some sentence on him.
Lord DEN MAN. This is Monday. Unless we receive 0311
sonata:fury report on the subject by Saturday, we shall feel
to be our duty to impose a fine on the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June
The Court was occcupivd dur ng the morning in hcarn 11*;
some cases which offered nu subject of general intercity
points raised being of a merely technical character.