The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-08-17 00:00:00

BIGAMY

Newsham, a middle-aged man, was indicted
for having, on the Ist of February last, intermarried with
Sarah Seddon, his former wife being still alive. The two
marriages being proved in evidence, the prisoner was
found guilty, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment.
The court rose a little after six o'clock.

TRUE DILLS FOR MURDER

During the day a true bill was found against Alice
Shand for the murder of her infant child at Liverpool,
and also against John Dozed, for murder at Liverpool.

A THIRD COURT

In order to facilitate the business, a third court will sit
this (Tuesday) morning in the Sheriff's court. Mr.
Bliss, Q.C., will preside.

♦
NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTNIAN.)
The court was opened at a few minutes past nine o'clock

this morning

EASTHANT PROVERTI

In the three several actions of CAZENOVE and OTHERS
(assignees), and - GREAVES and - THomrsoN V.
MOUSLEY, Mr. Sergeant WILKINS applied, on Saturday,
for a postponement of these trials on the ground of the
serious indisposition of the defendant, which rendered it
dangerous for him to leave his room on any business what-
ever, and on his affidavit that his testimony was material
and necessary for the defence of the cause.
Mr. Attorney-General KNOWLES this morning showed
cause against the application. He put in affidavits ex-
plaining the nature of the action, and declaring it to be
the opinion of the deponents that it was scarcely possible
that the defendant, Mr. Mouslev, a solicitor at Derby,
could be a material witness. The action was brought to
recover a sum of money, of which the defendant was
merely the stakeholder, being the amount of deposit paid
by the bankrupt to the defendant in July, 1847, on the
purchase by auction of part of an estate at Eastham, the
property of Sir NV. M. Stanley. The affidavits he pro-
duced stated that this money had not been paid on behalf
of Sir W. Stanley; on the contrary, the trustees of the
estate had been advised by counsel that they were not
entitled to any of the deposits made at the sales by auction
in 1847. The deponents further believed that the appli-
cation to postpone was only made with a view to delay ;
that the defendant had already been examined before the
bankruptcy commissioners at Liverpool, and could then
have given every explanation had he thought proper. and
that the ultimate recovery of the deposit was very doubtful.
if the trial were postponed, unless the money was paid
into court.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS having mentioned that Mr.
Mousley would no doubt pay the money into court in the
course of a month, it was agreed, after a short discussion,
that the trial should be postponed on this- condition, and
if not complied with, judgment to go for the plaintiffs by
default, in each case. An order was also made for the
voce examination of another witness, who was going
abroad, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Attorney—General
Knowles to appoint the examiner.

EVANS AND OTHERS V. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE

RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Ovens
were counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Attorney-General
Knowles, Mr. Sergeant 'Wilkins, and Mr. Tomlinson for
the defendants.

Mr. HILL, Q.C., in stating the case to the jury, said
the action was brought to recover from the Lancashire and
Yorkshire Railway Company a sum of £3,000, being the
amount awarded by an arbitrator to be paid to the plain-
T.onarlale. and:Walmsles. far damwß
done to certain bleach works at Kulshaw, in the neigh..
bourhood of Manchester, by the mode in which the de.
fendants carried on the construction of their works. It
appeared that the plaintiffs became possessed of this fac-
tory and bleach works in 1845. They formerly belonged
to Mrs. Mary Ann Orrell, who had carried on the busi-
ness of a dyer, &c., and who becoming involved in her
circumstances, had executed an assignment of the premi-
ses for the residue of the term of years of which she
was possessed to the present plaintiffs, as trustees for the
benefit of her creditors. In 1844 an act of parliament,
7 and 8 Vic., c. 82, was passed for constructing a railway
from the Manchester and Leeds Railway to the towns of
Ashton-under-Lyne and Staleybridge. The line which it
was thus proposed to construct went directly through the
land of Mrs. Orrell, passing over one of the reservoirs in
which water was collected for supplying the works, sepa-
rating two other of the reservoirs, and also interfering, to
a certain extent, with the regular supply of water to the
factory. By the 343 d section of the act above referred to,
power was given to the Manchester and Leeds Railway
Company to purchase the line authorised by that
statute to be made; and this power they exercised to
enable them to make the junction between their own lines
and the towns of Ashton-under-Lyne and Staleybridge.
Another act passed in 1847, 10 and 11 Vic., c. 163, by
which it was enacted that after the last day of the then
session of parliament, the name of the company, the
Manchester and Leeds, should be changed into the Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and this title
was subsequently adopted. The last day of that session
of parliament was July 23, 1847 ; and it was contended
by the plaintiffs, that for all purposes connected with the
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, the Lands'
Clauses Consolidation Act at that date became incor-
porated with the acts regulating that company ; and the
company were, therefore, bound by the provisions of
that act, from and after the close of the session of
parliament, 1847. At first there was but a single
line of railway formed, but subsequently a double
line was completed, and in the course of the construction
of these works the damage complained of was alleged to
have been. sustained by the plaintiffs. The injury this
inflicted had been estimated by Mr. Fisher at £3,000, the
company refusing to be any party to the arbitration, con-
tending that they did not come within the operation of
the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. Tnis was indeed
the main question in dispute between the parties, and
this, with other issues, was considered more as a matter
of law than of fact ; and the evidence of one witness only
was given for the purpose of proving that the bleach works
had been damaged by the formation of this line of railway
by the defendants.
Mr. KNOWLES then urged, at considerable length, a
variety of legal technical objections to the case as set forth
on the part of the plaintiffs, principally relying on the ar-
gument that the company did not come within the Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act.
It was then admitted that the land had been to some
extent injuriously affected by the construction of the
works, and at the suggestion of. his Lordship, a verdict
was given for the plaintiffs, subject to a special case.