The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-11-20 00:00:00

EXCHANGE NEWS-ROOM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
‘• SIR,—In the Albion of Monday last there appeared a note
prom " A Subscriber," but without giving any proof of the
authenticity of the signature, complaining of the injustice (as
tie calls it) done to the subscribers to the Exchange News-
room, by its being closed daily between the hours of four and
;ire o'clock. How this can be an injustice, when the ar-
rangement 'Was made at the particular request of nearly the
whole of the subscribers to that establishment, I know not.
I will now, with your permission, notice that part of his let-
ter where he says myself and partner (a very modest way of
expressing himself,
Imust say) pay three guineas a year each,
besides gratuities to the master and portgrs, (as he calls
them). Then this subkriber proves himself to be a non-sub-
scriber, f or. if he were, he would not be so ignorant of the
rules of the establishment as he evidently is. The committee,
feeling that the rate .of subscription was too high, abolished
gratuities to the master :and his assistants, twelve months
ago. He appears extremely jealous and complains bitterly of
the liberalities of the committee, in allowing subscribers to
introduce transient visitors to-the town to read during their
stay. In my opinion they could do no other, and it is only
what is done at similar rdoms. in other towns. I should not
have troubled you with .tEeke few lines, had I not felt that
the letter of " A Subscriber' was calculated to mislead, and
further, that it was uncalled for, and apparently founded on
some erroneous feeling. Your insertion of this will oblige
Yours, &c.,
JAMES SMYTH.
Liverpool, Nov. 18th, 1840.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Mommy.
VIEARNE, CLERK, V, STOWELL, CLERK.

Lord DENMAN gave the judgment of the court in this case,
which stood over on a motion for a rule nisi to set aside the
verdict returned for the plaintiff, on the ground of misdirec-
tion, and of the alleged libellous matter not containing any
imputation on the plaintiff. The alleged libel was read at a
public meeting at Manchester, where the defendant presided,
and stated, at least inferentially, that the plaintiff, a Roman
Catholic priest, had imposed a penance of a foolish nature
upon one of WO flock before he would administer to him the
sacrament. One objection taken to the maintenance of the
action was that the communication was privileged as it was
read at a public meeting in a bond fide discussion. Mr.
Baron Rolfe, before whom the cause was tried, had, how-
ever, held that it was not privileged, and told the jury if they
entertained the same opinion as.he did they would find for
the plaintiff. His lordship now said the court .was of opi-
nion that the defendant was not authorised to read a state-
ment, even in a bond fide discussion,'which reflected calum-
niously on the character of the plaintiff. The old case about
Fox's 'Martyrology, which had been referred to in moving
for the rule, could not be considered as law. The rule could
not, therefore, be granted on that point. In respect of the
other point, that the statement contained no imputation on
the plaintiff, the court thought there should be a rule in ar-
rest of judgment, and if it was not libellous, then the learned
judge should have left the jury to say whether it was a libel
or not, and not having done so, but having told them to find
for the plaintiff, it amounted to a misdirection.
Rule nisi granted in arrest of judgment.
THE QUEEN v. THE LONDON AND :BIRMINGHAM AND THE
GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANIES.
Sir F. POLLOCK moved the court for a rule in this case to
show cause why a mandamus should not be issued command-
ing these companies to comply with the provision of the
3d of Vic. c. 49 (Local and Personal Act). which enacted
that the charges to, be made on railways, for, passengers,
goods, and carriages, should be at all times equal on the same
portion of the railway lines,. and under all similar circum- •
stances. The object of this clause was to provide, against
any special charge being made against paryieular persons 'or
companies frequenting these transits. The application on
this occasion was made on the part of Messrs. Pickford and
Co., to exclude whom from the business of carriers along the
railway line would seem to have been the purpose of the par-
ties against whom this motion was made. In order to effect
this object they gave to another company advantages from
which Messrs Pickford were excluded, so that the -latter
should either give up their business altogether or pursue it
on such terms as would necessarily bring it in a short time to
51 suspension. The Messrs. Pickford had, in their long-es-
tablished and extensive business, obtained nearly three-
fourths of the carrying trade between London and Liver-
pool, and if they were now deprived of the advantages of the
railroad they might at once close their establishment. There
was a clause in the railway act alluded to which was well cal-
culated to lead the public to false conclusions. It was that
which, with a seeming fairness of arrangement, directed that
the railroads should be open to the steam carriages and trains
of other parties besides the company. Inasmuch, however,
as locomotive engines could not perform their functions with-
out making many stoppages to take in fresh supplies both of
water and coal, while the acts of parliament abstained front
all provision enabling them to obtain these indispensible
auxiliaries, the whole enactment became a mere delusion—a
fraud.

Mr. JUSTICE PATTESO:q.—It had never been attempted to
reduce this provision of the act into practice.
Sir F. PoLLocK.—lt had not. Railways were, in fact, the
strictest monopolies ; this' clause was a mere waste of words.
If a party applied at the office at Euston-square to have an
engine and train of this alien kind put upori the road, con-
sent would doubtless be given with this condition annexed,
that it had both coal and water to carry Wall the way it had
to go. The learned counsel proceeded to inform the court
how unfairly the companies of the Grand Junction and Bir-
mingham and London Railway had acted towards Messrs.
Pickford, by giving advantages denied to them to the goods
and packages of Messrs. Horn and Chaplin, who Nere also
carriers. Thus the latter were allowed to pass on from the
one line at Birmingham to the other without charge, or ad-
ditional charge, while the packages of Messrs: Pickford were
subjected to the delay and inconvenience of being shifted from
one set of carriages to another, unless they 'submitted to a
new charge. An extra expense of this kind was sufficient to
put an end to all fair competition between the two parties.
Again, on the arrival of the trains in town, Messrs. Horn &
Chaplin were allowed a deduction of 10s. out of Css. per ton,
charged for transit on their coming to Camden-town to carry
off their goods, while when Messrs. Pickford asked the same
terms, they were refused, and charged the full 655.
After some further remarks, both on the part of the learnei4
counsel and' his lordship, a rule was granted, to show cause
why a mandamus should not be issued, commanding
usingmand theiringthe croomad-
panies in question to charge all parties
equally under like circumstances, according to the provisions
of the act of 3d Vicioria, (Local and Personal).

Prince Lieven does not leave this country until the spring,
when his highness goes to Russia for several months.