COURT OF CHANCERY—THURSDAY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Turner.)

THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND THE PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY COMPANY.

     The arguments in this case were this morning continued. The matter originally came before Vice Chancellor Wood on a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendants from using the joint station at Landport, Portsea, of the plaintiffs and the South-Western Railway Company, for the booking or the transit of passengers or goods detained for and coming from the Portsmouth Railway, and any part thereof, except only so far as relates to the transmission upon the lines of railway laid down in the station, of traffic conveyance on the public service to or from the line belonging to the Crown leading to the dockyard or other naval or military establishments at Portsea or Portsmouth, It appeared that by the Brighton and Chichester (Portsmouth Extension) and London and South-Western Railway Act, 1847, it was enacted that the Brighton and Chichester Company might sell, and the South-Western Company and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Company might purchase, such part as should be agreed upon of the Portsmouth extension of the Brighton and Chichester Railway Company as was westward of the junction near Havant. This portion was to form and be worked as a joint line by the London and South-Western and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Companies, subject to the control of a joint committee of the two companies, it being enacted (section 13), that subject to such control and management and the provisions of any and every Act of Parliament for the time being relating to the joint line and to the two companies, each of the two companies might at all times hereafter use the joint line for the purposes of conveying passengers, animals, and things upon the same, and for all such purposes as should be necessary for the traffic and business thereon of the same respective companies. Articles of contract, in pursuance of the Act of 1847, were made on the 9th of October, 1848, between the three companies, for the purpose of arranging the terms upon which the joint line was to be worked and effecting the conveyance to the South-Western and Brighton and South Coast Companies. Farther terms of agreement between the two companies were arranged in August, 1852. By the Portsmouth Railway Act, 1853, the Portsmouth Railway Company was incorporated, with power to make a line from Havant to Godalming, to which place a branch of the South-Western Railway from Guildford extended, the line of the Portsmouth Company, when completed, joining the South Coast line at a short distance from Havant and the “joint line.” In January, 1858, another agreement was entered into between the Brighton and South Coast and the South-Western Companies as supplemental to the existing agreements of 1848 and 1852. By the Portsmouth Railway Amendment Act, 1858, sec. 35, that company and all other companies lawfully using the Portsmouth Railway, were authorised to pass over and use the joint line, and that portion of the Brighton and South Coast situated between its junction with the “joint lines.” Such powers of passage and of use to be exercised on such terms and conditions as failing an agreement between the companies should be settled in certain specified modes, with a proviso that, except as thereinafter provided, nothing in the act should confer on the company, or on any other company or persons, any power of use of the joint station at Landport, Portsea, for any purpose other than the transmission upon the lines laid down in the station of traffic conveyed on the public service. It was also provided (sec. 36), that the company and owners for the time being of the joint station at Landport, might agree for the use by the Portsmouth Railway Company, or such other company, &c., of this, the joint station, for the general traffic of the company, &c., on such terms as might be mutually agreed between them, provided that if no such agreement should be come to, then the Portsmouth Company should, before the year from passing the act, purchase so much of the land authorised to be purchased at Portsea as should be necessary for the construction of an independent station, and construct such station, &c., as might be required for the accomwodation of the traffic. The Portsmouth Railway Company had required the plaintiffs (the Brighton and South Coast Company) to come to an arrangement for the use, by them, of the South Coast line, between the two points of junction and of the plaintiffs’ station at Havant. The companies not having been able to agree upon the terms of user, the matter had been referred under the powers of the act to arbitration. The bill proceeded to allege that the South-Western Railway Company had entered into some agreement with the Portsmouth Railway Company for working their line, and for the conveynance of the traffic thereon, but that such agreement had been entered into without the concurrence or sanction of the plaintiffs. In Dec. last the plaintiffs received notice of the arrangements proposed by the South-Western Railway Company for working the traffic of the Portsmouth Railway and using the plaintiffs’ line between the two points of junction. The plaintiffs thereapon objected to the use of the joint station at Landport for the Portsmouth Railway traffic. Upon the South-Western Company insisting upon their right, in virtue of their joint ownership of the joint line and station, to use them for all purposes of their company, not excepting the accommodation of traffic, which might have passed from, or which might be about to pass to, the Portsmouth Railway, the plaintiffs had filed their bill and moved for an injunction in the terms above stated. In support of the motion it was contended that the South-Western Company was acting illegally and in violation of section 13 of the act of 1847, which must be confined strictly to the two companies, and could not enable the traffic of a third company to be introduced over the joint line, whether such traffic had originally travelled over the South-Western line proper or was merely traffic of the Portsmouth Railway, and that the South-Western Company, by working the Portsmouth Railway, must be taken as representing that company, which was expressly prohibited by the act of 1858 from using the joint station at Landport, except by agreement. On the other hand it was insisted that there was nothing in the acts to prohibit the South-Western Railway Company from using the joint station for all purposes, including the working by them of the Portsmouth Railway, and the conveyance of traffic over that line, whether between Portsmouth and London, or between Portsmouth and Godalming only. The Vice-Chancellor thought that the question in the case depended entirely upon the construction of the act of 1847, relating to the use of the joint line and station, and that this act was in no way modified by the Portsmouth Railway Amendment Act of 1858. His honour considered that there was nothing to lead him to the conclusion that bona fide traffic travelling over the South-Western line from London to Godalming, or vice versa, and ultimately over the joint line from Havant, was not South-Western traffic, although there might be a difficulty as to traffic starting from Petersfield, or any point on the Portsmouth Railway, as it could not be said to have ever been on any part of the South-Western line proper. His honour, therefore, considering the question in dispute as a mere dry point of law, refused to make any order upon the motion. An appeal was brought from this decision to this court. on the 8th of February last, and was then ordered to stand over until the hearing of the cause, and stood over accordingly until Wednesday, when the arguments occupied the whole of that day. This morning the further hearing was resumed; but the arguments not being concluded when the court rose, the case was ordered to stand over until Saturday week.

     Mr. Rolt, Mr. Willcocks, and Mr. J. H. Taylor, were for the plaintiffs; Sir R. Bethell, Mr. G. M. Giffard, Mr. Baggallay, and Mr. C. T. Simpson for the defendants.