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,
tiled 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
those 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 riot to be allowed if there was
any relief to be had upon the bill. His Lordship would not say
there was airy 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
126th, 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 i❑ 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.
lie would pronounce his final decision on Monday next.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Feb. 16.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENULAND.)
BRANFIL v. flavours.
The arguments in this cause, the question in which relates to
the construction of an agreement, occupied his Honour the Vice.
Chancellor of England the whole day. The arguments will pro.
bably not be finished for several days, the case being an extremely
heavy one,

(Before Vice-Chancellor WiGnA3r.)
MONK V. TtNKERYILLE.
His HONOUR was occucied during the day with the further hearing
of this part-heard cause. The object of the suit was to recover the
sum of 7,0001., which theplaintiff clahned in right of his wife, under
the will of Mrs. Skinner, and which had been made the only act of
marriage settlement between himself and his wife, Lady Mary
Monk.

Mr. Girdlestone and Mr. Sutton Sharpe appeared for the plain.
tiff, and the Solicitor-Generalfor the defendant.
(Before Vice-.
Chancellor BRUCE.)
COLUY V. SCOTCIIMERF..
The hearing of this cause was resumed this morning, and Conn.
sel were proceeding with the arguments, when
this HONOUR ordered it to stand over for want of parties.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Feb. 16.
(Sittings at Guildhall.)
FLEETWOOD V. CLARKE AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought for the recovery of 20/. 10s for the
services of plaintiff, as clerk to Wilson's Patent Lock Company,
from the 29th March to the 7th of July, 1841.
Mr. Tribe, the late secretary of the Company, said the Directors
were a fluctuating body, in.goings and out-goings being very
frequent. The qualifications of a Director, were to have paid
shares, and then they had 21. each for attendidg meetings, lie en-
gaged the plaintiff in December, tut the claim began only in March,
as the present directory were not simultaneously in office before
that time, lie had a salary of 2501., the plaintiff 303. a week—
neither to be paid until funds case in. Witness got into ditticul-
ties through bills on account of the Company, but they got him out
in part, and he hoped to extricate himself through the rest; but
the plaintiff had got nothing up to the time he left.
Mr. Bramah, the manager, proved the services of the plaintiff.
Another witness in reply to Mr. Platt, said, the locks of the Com-
pany were so good, that you could open them in the dark, if you
had the right key—(Laughter)—but he added, that even in the
strongest light, you could not open them with the wrong key.
The defence was, that the defendants had not engaged the plain-
tiff; but that if employed in the office at all, it was as
Mr. Tribe's assistant, to be paid by him out of his salary; otherwise
the ex-secretary, in sending in a list of liabilities in April, to meet
which he asked and got money, would not have omitted, as he did,
the claim of the plaintiff To this Mr. Tribe's answer was that he
had left out other liabilities al. o, but that he asked money for the
plaintiff from the Chairman, who said let it stand over.
Verdict for the plaintiff to the amount claimed, 201. 10s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. M.
The Court sat this day in Banco by special appointment, to hear
the further arguments in the motion for a new trial in the case of
Stewart a. Steele. The case was one of disputed ship insurance,
and was of interest only to the parties concerned.
The arguments were not concluded when we went to press.
HARRIS V. NI'LEAS AND ANOTIIER.
This was an action for false imprisonment against a police con.
stable and an inspector. The circumstances out of which the ac.
hots arose attracted a good deal of public attention at the time of
their occurrence. The plaintiff, a respectable tradesman in the
Borough, having dined with a party of friends at the Sugar-
loaf Tavern in Queen.street, Cheapside, and was proceeding
homewards by Southwark.bridge, when as he reached the toll-gate
he was stopped by one of the defendants, police constable Bramah,
who took him into custody, upon a charge of having been over-
heard to say that a few minutes would terminate his existence.
Mr. Harris denied this, but, notwithstanding his remonstrance, he
was taken to the Compter, and locked up by the other defendant, the
inspector who took the charge, which was altered to that of being
drunk. For this the action was brought.
Mr. Alderman THOMAS Wool) being now examined, stated that
in the morning after the arrest, the plaintiff was brought before
him, and he thought the charge frivolous. lle was the more in-
duced to dismiss it at once, on account of the variance in the
policemen's statements.

The landlady of the Sugar.loaf, and the tolltaker at the Bridge,
swore that Mr. Harris was not intoxicated.

For the defence a policeman arid another witness swore that
the plaintiff appeared to be intoxicated when brought to the
Compter.

Mr. Justice CRESS WELL said there was no case againt Mr. Cleave.
The Jury found for the plaintiff against the defendant Bramah
alone.—Damages 251.
STEAM-BOAT COLLISION.—CUNNINGHAM AND ANOTHER V. WILSON.
This was an action against the old Woolwich Steam.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 againsi. her. The witnesses for the plaintiffs swore positively
that the boats, between which there had been, from the first 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 slated 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 front that course, and her head deliberately turned
in shore, and run 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. 11d.
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 251.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 16.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius in Guildhall.)
ALLEN V. DREW.
This was an action of assunipsit for work and Lbour done as a
bricklayer 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 for the defendant.