The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-17 00:00:00

COMPANY,

The arguments in this part-heard cause were concluded to.day,
when his Lordship delivered judgment. The plaintiff, Mr. Gordon.
filed a bill against the above Company, who were the defendants in
this cause. In that Bill the Act of Parliament under which the
Company was constituted; the contract into which, according to
the provisions of that Act, they entered with him; and the
acts committed by the Company which, the plaintiff alleged, con-
stituted a violation of the Act of Parliament. were set forth, and the
plaintiff prayed for an injunction to restrain them from committing
these acts. To the motion for an injunction the defendants had
put in a demurrer, denying the plaintiff to- be in a position which
entitled him to the protection of the Court. With regard to
the demurrer, the arguments turned upon the construction in
the Act of Parliament of the word " public," which was
alleged to have a particular meaning that extended to every
word in that clause of the Act in which it occurred.
The clause was to the effect that it was not lawful for the Com.
pany to make or establish any public station, yard, wharf, &c.
for loading and unloading goods, or for the convenience
of passengers, &c. on the estate of Mr. Gordon, or within fifty
yards of his estate or residence, without his previous consent.
Upon that part of the line of railway which constituted
o portion of the estate of Mr. Gordon, the defendants had erected a
wooden building, which they called an engine-house, for de-
positing engines to be used on the railway. In that
building they had erected a forge, so that it was a place for
repairing engines. They had also built there a stable and
two cottages. Mr. Gordon alleged that their so doing
was contrary to the clause referred to. The defendants said other.
wise. They said that the word " public" had reference to every
word in the clause—that it meant a place to which any
person constituting a portion of the public had a right
to resort—that the place of deposit for the engines was
not for the use of the public, but for the private use
of the Company. It Was very much to be wished that
clauses in Acts of Parliament were expressed with more precision
than they commonly were. However, that being the case
of the demurrer it ought not to be allowed if there was
any relief to be had upon the bill. His Lordship would not say
there was any relief to be had upon the bill, unless he adopted the
construction put upon the word "public" by the defendants.
On reading the, clauses of the Act, particularly the 17th and
136th, he could not satisfy himself either that the word " public "
was to be applied to every part of the sentence, or if it was to be so
applied that he could attribute to it the meaning which the defen-
dants did. That it was ambiguous, he thought, must be admitted. It
was not easy to give clear and demonstrative reasons, one way or the
other. However, even if the word " public" did extend to all
parts of the sentence, It could not admit of the exclusive meaning
attached to it by the defendants. He could not, therefore, see
that the plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of the Court on
that point, and he should accordingly overrule the demurrer.
Then came the question of the motion to restrain the defend-
ants from using the buildings which they had erected, and from
building others. At the tenacity with which the arguments
on the point of the plaintiffs' acquiescence in this respect were
urged, his Lordship was much surprised. If there had been acqui-
escence on the part of the plaintiff; his Lordship would have heard
of it in a form very different from that in which it had
been mentioned. There was no acquiescence, then, which could
deprive the plaintiff of any right to which he was entitled. The next
and most important point was the inconvenience that might arise
to either party by the granting or withholding of the injunction.
On this particular point he thought it best to abstain from granting
the injunction till that matter was further investigated.
He would, therefore, reserve that point till he consulted
the decisions of Lord Cottenharn on questions of this nature.
He would pronounce his final decision on Mouday next.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 16.

STEAM-BOAT COLLISION. -CUNNINGIIALI AND ANOTHER V. WILSON

This was an action against the old Woolwich Stearn-boat Corn.
pany, for wilful damage done to the steam-boat, the Queen Vic-
' toria, belonging to the plaintiffs, by the boat, the Naiad, having
run againsk her. The witnesses for the plaintiffs swore positively
that the boats, between which there had been, from the tint time
the Victoria went upon the Woolwich and Hungerford passage, a
sharp rivalry, started from Woolwich at the same time, on the
morning of the 19th of June, 1840. For some distance
they kept a parallel course, but the Victoria, which was
considerably the swifter of the two, as well as the smaller, arrived
at the Nile pier, where she stopped to take in a passenger, the
Naiad being about a hundred yards behind, and further from the,
shore. They stated that the outer course, nearer the centre of the
river, and that which she was, till then, taking, was her proper
course, the tide being low and running down ; and that she
was sheered from that course, and her head deliberately turn.:d
in shore, and ran into the Victoria's quarter, to the imminent
danger of the passengers, of whom many were ladies. It was
stated that after the first collision the paddles were kept on, instead
of being backed, and she was again driven against the Naiad, where-
by a second damage was occasioned; the rail and staunchions of the
Victoria's starboard quarter being carried away. The actual injury
was not great. The Victoria arrived first at Hungerford : and the
repairs, for which damages were laid, amounted only to 41. 6s. I Id.
For the defendant.; (of the Naiad), a number of witnesses, who,
however, as Mr. Justice Creswell observed, were shareholders or
servants of the Company, swore that the collision was accidental,
and owing to the mismanagement of the Victoria.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 41. 6s. I Id.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 16.
(Sittings st Nisi Prius in Guildhall.)
ALLEN V. DREW.
This was an action of assumpsit for work and 1 .bour done as a
brieklayer by the plaintiff for the defendant. The facts of the case
were totally devoid of public interest, although it occupied the
Court up to two o'clock-.--A verdict was given far the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 16.
IN RE BILL Al4O BROOKES.

The final examination of these bankrupts took place this clay.
Mr. Kearsley (the solicitor) having examined the bankrupt, Mr.
Brookes, as to several, particulars in his accounts, informed him
that it was intended to resist any claim which might be put in for
an alleged debt of 1,0001. from the firm to Mr. Brookes's father.

•
Mr. Robson, of the firm of Robson and M'Gregor (Chcapside),
wished to remark upon two extraordinary circumstances which he
observed upon examining the books of the bankrupts.
One was, that up to 1837, when they were solvent, and
Going well, their books were kept with regularity. At that
time the clerk absconded, and it w..as s tid took the cashbook with
him, since which they had kept all other books correctly, but no
cash-book whatever.

The COURT considered it extraordinary how the other books could
be kept at all without a cash-book.
Mr. Alderman T. WOOD, who appeared for the bankrupts, ex.
plained that on the clerk's absconding, and carrying off the books,
their accounts were left In disorder, and had not afterwards been
rightly kept. But the petty cash.book and the banker's book
would supply the want of a cash-book.

The COVia could not be made to believe that.
Mr. Robson begged further to remark that goods obtained from
his firm were to the value of 8391. transmitted to Gibraltar to a
brother of Mr. Brookes, who was a clerk under twenty.one years of
age, who was represented to have sold them at a loss on the whole
of 3381. Ifs 5d., or about 41 per cent.
Mr. Brookes explained that the amount of sale had been
received by the assignee since the bankruptcy, and the
statement of his brother was that other goOds of the same quality
were in the market at the same time, at the price for which he
sold ; and if he had kept the goods back the season would have
been lost.

Mr. Commissioner EVANS observed that the matters pointed out
by Mr. Robson were extraordinary ; but he would not, on that ac-
count, refuse to let the bankrupts pass. If, however, Mr, Robson
should discover that anything had been concealed or misstated, he
could have the bankrupts brought before the Court again.
The bankrupts were then passed.