5.—The suit, Gurney _v._ Gurney and Taylor, came before the Divorce Court, Westminster. The husband sought dissolution of marriage, on the ground of misconduct by the wife. A petition had been presented for the settlement of property then vested in the wife in favour of the children, the issue of the marriage, and the Solicitor-General applied for a rule _nisi_ calling on the respondent, Mrs. Gurney, to show cause why a plea or a pleading in the nature of or intended to be a plea should not be taken off the file, and why the petition for settlement should not be treated as unanswered or unopposed. Sir C. Cresswell granted a rule _nisi_. Evidence was given in the case on January 22nd, 1861, and the decree was made absolute on May 22nd. 11.—In the Vice-Chancellor’s Court was heard the action, Berney _v._ the Norfolk and Eastern Counties Railway Company. By an agreement dated June 6th, 1843, the plaintiff sold certain land to the Norwich and Yarmouth Railway Company, and it was provided that such company should establish and for ever maintain a station in connection with their railway at Reedham, on part of the land sold to them by plaintiff. Nothing was said in the agreement in reference to stopping trains at the station. In 1844 the Norwich and Yarmouth railway was completed, and a station was constructed in accordance with the agreement, and called the Barney Arms Station, at which certain trains stopped. In 1845 the Norwich and Yarmouth Company was incorporated with the Norfolk Railway Company, and trains continued to stop at the station until 1850, when the Norfolk Company discontinued the practice. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this suit, praying for a specific performance of the agreement of June, 1843, and an injunction to restrain the Norfolk Company from permitting the trains on their railway to pass the Berney Arms Station without stopping thereat, which was, in effect, to compel the company to stop the trains at that station. The motion for the injunction did not come on, in consequence of an arrangement whereby the Norfolk Company agreed to stop at Berney Arms Station one train from Norwich and one from Yarmouth on every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday. The Norfolk Railway was now worked by the Eastern Counties Railway on an agreement dated in 1854, which had received the sanction of the Legislature. The Eastern Counties Company were then made parties to the suit. Although the trains then stopped in a manner satisfactory to the plaintiff, there was no security that they would continue to do so. The Vice-Chancellor said there must be a specific performance of the agreement of June, 1843, and an order that one train from Norwich and one from Yarmouth should stop at Berney Arms Station on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday in every week; but he should also order that each of the companies should pay £100 to the plaintiff by way of costs. But for the plaintiff’s forbearance in this