Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS COMPANY.

THE PEMBROKESHIRE RIGHT OF…

News
Cite
Share

THE PEMBROKESHIRE RIGHT OF WAY CASE. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COM. PANY Y. PHILLIPS AND OTHERS. In the Queen's Division of the High Court of Justice on Thursday week, before Mr Baron Pollock and Mr Justice Cave, sitting as a divisional court, Mr Asquith, M.P., apppeared in the case of the Great Western Railway Company v. Phillips and others, in support of an application by the Great Western Railway Company for a stay of execution pending appeal. The learned coun. sel said the action was brought by the railway company in respect of an alleged trespass committed by a number of persons who de- fended the action on the ground that there Wag a public tight of way. The action came on for trial at the recent assizes held at Haveifordwest before Mr Justice Manisty, who gave judgment for the defendants. There were points of law in the case of con- siderable difficulty, and the plaintiffs had served notice of appeal, and they now asked for stay of execution with regard to the costs Of the action, or that the defendants, being poor villagers, out of whom nothing could be got, their solicitor should be ordered to give security or an undertaking that they would be responsible for the costs if, on appeal, the case went against the defendants. Otherwise the plaintiff's would, supposing they were successful, be unable, to recover any of the costs. The facts were these. There were two public footways leading down from the village to the foreshore. Parliamentary powers were obtained by the railway company to construct a line alone the foreshore, and in constructing the line they crossed the shore end of the two footpaths and obliterated them and the question of law for decision was whether the parliamentary powers did not authorise the obliteration of these foothp?itlis.-Mi- Baron Pollock: Why did you not ask Justice Manisty to grant a stay of execution ?-Air Asquith: We had not then made up our mind for appeal.—Mr Napier (for the defen- dants) Probably the word of Justice Manisty in giving his judgment. t<ad something 9 to do with the neglect to ask bim,ler a stay, His Lordship said if the railway company had' spent the money expended in litigation m constructing a "bridge for the convenience of the public, they would have been in clorer (langhter). But the fact was proved that the learned ~counseT for railway companies de- lighted in litigation.—Baron Pollock Don't be ungrateful, Mr Napier.—Mr. Napier: Three judges had decided against the com- pany, and yet they went on worrying the defendants.—After some further conversation, their lordships agreed to stay execution on the payment into court by the railway com- pany of Y,200 on account of the defendants' costs.—Execution stayed accordingly.

DISPUTE BETWEEN LLANELLY FARMERS.

-------------THE CHANNEL FLEET…

,:FAMINE IN INDIA.

SMUGGLING EXTRAORDINARY.

" THE DOG IT WAS THAT DIED."

AN INTERESTING LETTER.

A THOUGHTLESS SMOKER.

BALLOON ACCIDENT IN FRANCE.

CARMARTHEN POST OFFICE.

Advertising

[No title]

Advertising