After expert evidence had been given, the Hon. A. Lyttelton, K.C., for the railway company, said it was ridiculous to assert that the Company had committed an act of trespass. They disputed the claimant’s alleged ownership to land sixty-five feet below his premises, and were determined to fight the question in the courts, inasmuch as it was one which affected the whole of the electric tube railways in London. One witness called on behalf of the Company said that the damage to the property could be remedied by the expenditure of a ten-pound note. The Under-Sheriff said that an important feature of the case which the jury had to decide was whether the claimant was the owner of the subsoil. As such he would be entitled to compensation for any vibration that might occur when the railway commenced to run in about two years’ time. He left it to the jury to decide their verdict under two heads, namely, “what damages had at present been sustained,” and, “what damage was likely to accrue through vibration.” After a brief deliberation the jury awarded £357, in one sum, as damages. On the 6th of February of the present year, before Mr. Justice Ridley and a special jury, the hearing was resumed of the case in which Mrs. Dawson, a widow, carrying on the business of a draper at the junction of City Road and East Street, sued the Great Northern and City Railway for £10,000 damages, alleged to have been caused by the tunnelling operations in the vicinity of her premises. The claim included some £4,000 which it is estimated it would cost to put the buildings in a proper state of repair, and £5,000 representing loss of business during the time it would take to complete the work of reinstatement. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff under the following heads: Amount for taking the subsoil occupied by the tunnel, £50; structural damage, £2,000; damage to trade and stock, £2,100; total, £4,150. Mr. Dobb asked that judgment should be entered. Mr. McCall thought the judge had no power to enter a judgment of the High Court because the proceedings were in the form of an interpleader action. Mr. Justice Ridley said he would give judgment in the sense in which the word was used in the Lands Clauses Act. Judgment was given accordingly. At a meeting of the Auctioneers’ Institute held last year, Mr. G. M. Freeman, K.C., speaking on this subject, pertinently remarked that various questions were likely to arise between the promotors of the new order of underground railway and the owners of adjacent property, and he gave it as his opinion that the assertion that no possible damage would be caused, had not been wholly verified, and that the rights of compensation to persons equally injured ought not to depend upon whether a piece of the subsoil under the street was or was not appropriated. In his judgment, all owners who could prove damage done by the construction or working of an underground railway, should have the same title to compensation. VIBRATION