The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-21 00:00:00

RAILWAY lisim Lid GEA CE.

On Monday the continuation of the South-Pastern line
of railway was opened from Canterbury to Rangy>gate.
Mr. Gre.z.on has been appointed manager of the Edin-
burgh and Glas2ow at a salary of £3,(.00, rising to 41.060
with the improvement of the company.
The scriuholdera of Nottingham have adopter' a resolu-
tion approving of the views of government wi'h respect to
the disso►ution of companies at the instance of a majority
of the shareholders.

At a " wind-up" meeting a few days ago, Mr. J.
Maunder, of Exeter, said that the railway speculators of
that city had pledged themselves to schemes amounting
to eleven millions of money !
In the Court of Common Pleas, on Friday, a new trial
was granted the case of Pigot v. the Ea.,tern Counties'
Railway Company. The plaintiff had obtained damages
for property destroyed by a spark from a locomotive
engine.

SUBSIDENCE OF A RAILWAY VIADUCT.—The mid-
dle arch of the Preston viaduct. of 27 arches, which
crosses the turnpike-road from London to Bright m,
was found to have sunk a font or eigl.t en inches,
and will have to he rebuilt. The opening of the new
lire will be declared.

The Leeds Mercury Mates, that in consequence of the de-
ris'on in the Cit,C of " Wooltner v. Toby," a waggon load
at least of circulars have come to Bradford from voracious
solicitors of defunct lines, requiring payment of instal-
ments. One of them, it seems, issued 140 writs against
Provisional Committeemen for £3B due to a person for
work done for a Railway Company.
HAVE YOU GOT A TOBY ?—The shower of missives
from Railway Directors, all referring to the stock case of
" Wonlmer v. Toby," which has been falling incessantly
on unhappy allottees, for the last week or two, has given
rise to the constant inquiry—" Have you got a Toby ?"
Once upon a ti r e, when people met tovether at a street
corner, the remark was, " it's a floe day ;" or, " It's
very wet," as the case might be; but now, one hears no-
thing but—" Have you got a Toby ?"
A frightful accident occurred on the Eastern Counties
line, on Sunday week. The directors were running
a special train to Newmarket, for the races on the follow.
ine day, conveying Lord and Lady Chesterfield, Lord E.
Russell. and the elite of the sporting world. amounting to
near 100. The engines (there being two) got off the rails,
and shot the carriages down a steep emhaokrnent into a
ditch, but the passengers luckily escaped with little more
than a ducking. The loss to the company is ab.ive £3,000.
RAILWAY BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT.—The Dab'
News of Friday publish-s an analysis, showing the
pres nt state of railway business in parliament, from
which it appears that 48 bills have been read a second
time in the Lords, 19 gone through committee in the
Lords. 286 been read a second time in the Commons, 27
gone through committee in the Commons, 8 read a third
time and passed in the Commons, 14 withdrawn, 28
thrown out on standing orders, 13 thrown out in commit.
tee, 22 petitions for bilis still before standing orders com-
mittee, 33 petitions still before the sub-committees, 219
dennct schemes.

FEARFUL RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—On Sunday a serious
accident occurred on the Brandling Junction Railway,
near South Shields. The engine by some means got off
the line, draggis g the tender along wi,h it, and fell over an
embankment, about 14 feet deep, on to a c Ater. the roof
of which it penetrated, destroying the house, wed' burying
the inmates, consisting of two women and a boy, in the
'ulna. The boy escaped unhurt, one of the females had
her leg broken, by the engine falling upon it, and the
other was so dreadfully scalded that •he died on Tuesday.
At the inquest the verdict was that there was no evidence
to show that any blame could be attached to the com-
p-my s servants. The engine still remains where it fell,
and it has been found necessary to pull down two adjo,n-
ing houses, in order to effect its removal, and even then it
cannot be removed entire, but must be taken to pieces and
rebuilt.

GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.—On Thurs-
day a special meeting of the proprietors was held in the
Cotton Salee.room, for the. purpose of submitting drafts
of bith, for which application is to be made to parliament
during the present session. Charles Lawrence, Esq.,
the chairman to the board of directors, occupied thechatr.
Mr Swift, the clerk to the company, then read drafts of
the bills, by which it is proposed to a,.thot ise the com-
pany to construct, or become the proprietors of, or to be-
come the lessees of, or to contribute towards the forma-
ton of, the railways therein mentioned. Mr. Vierpoint,
of Warrington, objected to the branch from Huron to
A-hton, on the ground that an expenditure of nearly a
million of money would be incurred for a saving in dis.
tatter of five and a half miles ; besides, by the proposed
wooks in connexion with it, the navigation of the river
Mersry would be impeded. This objection was over.
ruled, and the proprietors sanctioned the drafts which
were submitted to them.

THE GAuoKs.—The projected number of breaks of
guage, occasioning a change of cairia.:.e at each. if the
brow guage lines ot 18-15 are made, will be no few-r than
ten. A passenger from Chester, by Gloucester, to S. nth-
ampton, w ruld have to shift himself and his tugg,,gt, four
times ; first at Wolverhampton, then at Worcester, again
at Gloucester, and then at Salisbury. The proportions
of tLe two guages, in respect of distance and capital, will
be found to stand thu‘ :—Narrow gua,e lines sancti toed
in 1845 amount to 1,220 miles, and. their capital to
£2l 736,640 ; the lines proposed to be broad guage (hut
sti I subj ct to the decision of Parliament) amount to 577
milts, and £7,433,000. 'Poe railways now open for pas-
serger ttaffic in Great Britain are 2-10 miles or broad
guage, valued at £9.704 361 and 1,593 miles of narrow
guage, valued at .t 57.186,137. This tot .1 excludes mi
neral lines, all on tie narrow guage, whose extent may be
rearmed at about 300 miles. locludnue these, the sum-
mary of narrow gunge lines is about 2.1100 miles. to he
contrasted with 240 of broad goay.—Railtroy Chronic!,

ENQUIRY OF ASSESSED DAMAGES.— A c urt of en.
quire; was held on le.idav, at the Clarendon-rooms, b, fore
J. H. Hutton, the sheriff's ass-ssor, to assess the value
of property to be taken by the Grand Junction Railway
Co., for their improvements in the neighbourhood of the.
present. Lime-street station. The first inqu;ry related to
some property in liotham-street, opposite the Blind
Asylum, and belonging to Mr. Solomon abson. The
company had offered £B5O, which was refu-ed. It was
est mated by the witnesses on Mr. G.'s part, at from
£1.200 to £2,000, but at ankh lees by the witnesses of
the company. the jury returnwd a verdict, fixing the
value at 4:810. Mr. Joseph Sooth, marble mason, Glou-
cester-street. claimed £3 200 for his land, bu
loss of trade, and removal. After a great number of wit'.
nesses had been called, the joy assessed the amount at
-£1,9 0. For property in tiothan-stteet, l'el011;ng to
Mr. George Gough. the company consented to a verdict
for 31;0 guineas. Mr. Biker, tobacconist, claimed com-
pensation for removal fiom his house, and the company
off red £2O, which he finally accepted. •
kEDUCTION OF RATES.—Tir! London and Birming..
ham Railway have reduced the charge for the move% ance
ot hardware and manufactured goods for any distance over
fi'ty miles to 2,1. per ten per mile, including loco-
!) wive power, and all charges except for collectoig and
delive.y. We are also informed that the cowl any
intend. by a bill which they hate now before Parliarne.t.
to propose this as the maximum rate which they shall
have the power of chargii g. The followit g statement
will afford some idea of the effect ot a 'eduction in chaige„
on the carriage of goods by r: lw ay. It app, ars that in
the quarter ending December. 1844. the quantity of goods
carried on the London and 13irminanon Line was 85.520
tons, the receipts fur which were £41,824. In the cot.
rasponding quarter ending December. 1845. (a la, g- re-
duction having taken place in the charges in the into. %al),
the quantity carried was 129 560 tons, bring an increas- of
44 040 tons on the quat ter, but in respe, t of the entire
tonnage during the latter quarter, the receipts were only
£51.481, or an inc, ease of £6.660, ric freely sutfic'ent to
ansa e• the increased expenses atteLdiaA the larger atnunht
of busiuess dune.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLL'S COURT.-FRIDAY,-APRIL 17.
SPARLING V. PAH %ER,

(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
The Master of the Rolls gave, judgment in this case.
, The question reserved by his lordship on the former occa-
sion was whether the shares of a deceased shareholder in
the Liverpool Gas Light Company, vi hich was incorpo-
rated by act of Parliament—and also in the Lancaster Gas
Light Company and the Harrington Dock Company. b.th
of which were constituted by deed only, canoe within the
provisions of 9 Geo. 11., c. 36, the statute against Mort-
main.

The question was, whether there ought to be any abate-
ment from certain legacies given to charities by a deceased
shareholder to the extent that those legacies would have
to be paid out of the proceeds of the shares in ques•ion,
The Masterof the Rolls said, the question was, whether
the shareholders in these companies had such an interest
in land as could be deemed to be within the statute of
Mort main. The shareholders were entitled to receive the
dividends on their shares, being their just proportion of
the profits from the joint stock, partly consisting of land.
But they had no distinct right to the land, or any part of
it. A shareholder could not proceed against the land
directly, or make it or any part of it his own, or a security
tor any demand he might have. He was not in the situa-
tion of a mortgagee, who might make the land his own ; or
of -a tenant in common, or joint-tenant, who might make
a portion of the land his own in severalty. And in the
administration of the estate of a deceased shareholder,
his share, in the absence of any special direction, would
have to be sold and converted into money, and the pro-
ceeds otherwise ihvested. He was of opinion that a
shareholder in these joint stock companies was not entitled
to a share or interest in lend so as to fall within the pro-
visions of the Mortmain Act. A shareholder would only
be entitled to his share of the proceeds of the property
upon winding up the affairs of the company. He was,-
therefore, of opinion, that there ought to be no abatement
of the legacies given to the charities.

COOKE V. WETH I:RALL.—This case will be tried again
at the next Guildtold Assizes.

H. A. Browne, Esq., a member of the Irish Bar, has
been convicted of bigamy. The prisoner had bound him.
self in a bond of £l.ooo that no lawful impediment existed
to his second marriage.
IMPORTANT CASE.—On Wednesday a motion was
made in London, before Mr. Ju-tice Coleridge, on behalf
of the Earl of Derby, to have an action brought by the Earl
against Mr. Latham, architect, of Preston, tried before the
sheriff's assessor at the courtly court. The action is for
rent of a pew alleged to be the property of the plaintiff,
and occupied by the defendant. Mr. Latham deities the
right of any person to sell or let any pew in the body cf a
par;sh church. The application was opposed, and the
judge stated, that it was not sustainable, so that if tried,
the cause will he taken to a superior court. A most im-
portant question is involved in this case. Public atten-
tion has, upon several recent occasion's been directed to it,
and it is probable that a decision will now be obtained on
the subject.
WOOLMER V. TOHlr.—The Court of Queen's Bench, on
Friday, granted a new trial in this case. Mr. Sergeant
Kinglake contended that this verdict could not stand as
the shares were not allotted until a panic ca me over the
money market, and it was reasonable to suppose from the
evidence, that if ihe speculation wa, likely to have been a
profitable one, the provisional committee would have kept
the whole or nearly the whole of the shares in their ()an
hands, until they coula haue been disposed of at a higher
premium. But a panic came on before the allotment,
although two months had elaesed (torn the time of the
plaintiff's application, and the answers to applications
were not received in time. The judge, on the trial, said
he thought that two months was not an unreasonable time
for alloting .10,000 shares, which he submitted was a mis-
direction to the jury, as it appeased that the provisional
committee had determined to wind up the concern.
COURT OF I XCHEQUER.—LIv RPOOL, PRFSTON. AND
NORTH UNION JUNCTION RAILWAY.—RAWSTORNE
AND OTHERS V. GANDELL AND ANOTHER.—At the
Court of Exchequer, on Wednesday last, this case was
brought before Sir F. Pollock, Lord Chief Baron. Mr.
Crompton moved to s t aside a plea of a release which
had been pleaded. The plaintiffs are the provisional
committee of a company projected for the form ttion of
the above railway, and defendants the engineers who were
entrusted to prepare the plans to be deposited by the 311th
November, and to whom money to the amount of £2 300
was supplied to carry out their operations. That day,
however, passed without their depositing the plans; so
that the scheme fell to the ground, and the action was.
brought to recover the money paid, es a compensation for
the heavy outlay ; the scheme being rendered abut- ive.
To this the defendants pleaded non askumpsit, and the
plaintiffs were prepared to go to trial, when they were
met by the plea in qoestton, which set up a release to
defendants by two of the plaintiffs, and which, if availa-
ble, would operate as a bar to the action. The counsel
submitted that the court E huuld interfere to prevent the
detendants setting up this defence, contending that there
was collusion on the part of the releasors, in ft vud of
their co-plaintiffs and of the whole shareholders.—The
Court was of opinion that it could not so interfere. Al-
though it might be that the course pursued by these rar-
ties was highly improper, y. t mere impropriety was not
enough to warrant them in preventing the defendants
from setting up a release obtained from any one of the
plaintiffs, who, at its date, had any actual interest in the
concern. Under the circumstances, the rule Weas refused.