Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page

WE HOP 'L AGRICULTURAL SHOW…

LLANDDERFEL.

FEARFUL ACCIDENT AT A ROMAN…

[No title]

ROLLS' COURT, CHANCERY-LANE,…

News
Cite
Share

ROLLS' COURT, CHANCERY-LANE, JAN. 20. Before the Master of the Rolls. BE CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS COMPANY. Mr Osborne Morgan, Q. C. (Mr E. Herbert with him), moved on behalf of Ann Parry and Cadwallader Richard Jones for leave to take such proceedings as they might be advised for specific performance against the Cambrian Railways Company. It appeared that some land belonging to the applicants had been required for the purposes of the undertaking, and was taken possession of by the company in January, 1862. In December, 1866, the purchase-money was ascertained at £475, but, although the title had long age been accepted and the conveyance approved and executed, no part of this sum had been paid. An affidavit had been filed on behalf of the company, asserting their total inability to settle, which was attributed to the directors having failed to raise the money which, by the Cambrian Railways Act, 1868, they were empowered to raise for the purpose of meeting landowners' claims, the total amount of which was stated to exceed 270,000. The application was rendered necessary by the Cambrian Railways Act, 1868, which forbids proceedings to be commenced or con- tinued against the company for five years from July 31, 1868, unless with the leave of the Court. His Lordship, who had observed upon the singular course taken by recent legislation on the subject, which, in the first instance, enables a company to take land from the owner without his consent, and subsequently enacts that he shall not be paid for it, said that the primary object of the Act was to suspend litigation, and that leave to proceed ought not to be granted unless in special cases, as where it was shown that the directors could pay if they liked. There was no evidence of this being the case, but there was evidence that there was a balance of glo,ooo a year over working expenses, and things might get better. The motion would, therefore, be refused without costs, without prejudice to its being renewed at any time after the lapse of six months, should the appli- cants desire it.

Advertising