The several cases which have occurred in which solicitors have been restrained from acting against their former clients, or communicating information acquired in such employment, proceed upon a principle which governs this case: for it cannot be contended that they are to be at liberty to use for their own benefit, and to the prejudice of their former clients, information acquired whilst acting for them, which they are not permitted to communicate or to use for the benefit of others. I am therefore of opinion that Mr. Carter had been incapacitated, by the character of his employment, from purchasing, for his own benefit, these securities upon his employer's property, and that such incapacity continued at the time of his purchase, and consequently that he is to be considered as having so purchased for the benefit of his former employer. In this view of the case the decree is correct as to interest, as it repays to the agent the money expended by him in the purchase, with interest at 5 l. per cent. upon the money so advanced. To have given higher interest, would have been to recognise in him an interest in the securities which it is the principle of the decree to negative. I think also that the decree is correct as to costs, for it makes the Appellant pay costs only from the time at which he was offered by the Respondent all that has ultimately been found to be due to him. From that time the litigation has arisen from his attempt to obtain what he has been held not to be entitled to. Of such litigation the author of it ought to pay the costs. I therefore move your Lordships that the decree appealed from be affirmed, with costs. [IT was ordered and adjudged, that the appeal be dismissed and that the decree be affirmed: And it was further ordered 1842. CARTER v. PALMER. 1842. CARTER v. PALMER. How to pro ceed to enforce pay and adjudged, that the Appellant pay to the Respondent the costs incurred in respect of the appeal, the amount to be certified by the Clerk Assistant.] The Clerk Assistant having taxed and certified the costs, Lady Palmer, the widow and sole legal representative of the ment of costs. Respondent, not being able to obtain payment of them, presented a petition to the House, stating, among other things, the appeal and the order of the House thereon, and that a copy of that order had been served on Mr. Carter's agents: That the Clerk Assistant, by his certificate dated the 6th of June 1842, certified that, by virtue of the Act 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 64, "An Act to establish a Taxation of Costs," &c. and of the standing order of the House, No. 215, dated the 3d of April 1835 (u), and in pursuance of the said judgment, he had taxed the costs to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent at 759 l. 10s. That Carter and his agents had attended the taxation, and had notice of the amount so certified: That Carter resided then at Langford-place, St. John's Wood, and had also an office in Great James-street, Bedford-row, both in the county of Middlesex: That petitioner's agents party, who is made repeated attempts at the said residence and office to serve him with the said certificate, and to make personal depay costs, absents him- mand on him for payment of the costs; but they were not self to avoid able to meet him, and they and the petitioner had cause to personal demand and believe, and did believe, that he sought to avoid being served service of the with the certificate and having payment of the said costs personally demanded of him: And the petition therefore prayed their Lordships to order that service of the certificate and demand of the said sum of 7597. 10s. upon the agents of Carter in the appeal, and leaving a copy of the certificate at his last place of abode, together with serving such order as their Lordships should make on this petition on such agents, and leaving a copy thereof at such last place of abode, might be good service and demand; and that, in case Carter should not pay said sum to the petitioner's agents within a week after such service and demand, the Usher of the Black Rod, whether Where a ordered to certificate of the costs, the House will order substi tuted service on his agents in the appeal. (u) Ante, Vol. VI. p. 980. the House be sitting or not, should attach him and detain him in custody until he should pay the said sum, and such further costs as their Lordships might order by reason of this application, together with fees, &c. The petition was referred to the Appeal Committee, who reported that they had considered the same; and in pursuance of their report and recommendation, an order was made, in the terms of the prayer of the petition, for the substituted service. That service, and a demand of payment of the costs, were accordingly made on the agents; but the costs not being paid, Lady Palmer presented another petition praying an order for the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to attach Carter, &c.; but being the last day of the Session, the petition was ordered to stand over for the first day of the then next Session. Nothing further was done therein; Lady Palmer having, in the meantime, obtained the costs out of the funds of Carter in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, upon application to that Court. In the case of Callaghan v. Callaghan, ante, p. 374, the appeal having been dismissed with costs, which the Clerk Assistant certified at 426 l. 18 s. 11 d., the Respondent's agent served the Appellant with the certificate of the said costs, and demanded payment personally; but the same not being paid, the Respondent presented a petition to the House, and prayed that the Appellant might be compelled to pay the said sum; and that, for that purpose, the recognisances that were entered into on lodging the appeal might be estreated into the Court of Exchequer. The House ordered the recognisances to be estreated, and the Appellant to pay the costs of this application, in addition to the said sum of 426 l. 18 s. 11 d. 1842. CARTER v. PALMER. Where a par- with the cer does not pay them, the House will, on petition of the party entitled, order the recognisances to be estreat ed for the payment of costs, together with costs of the petition. 1842: March 22. Tonnage. Private Act, Construction of. Notice of a Bill in Parliament. THE PROPRIETORS of the Edinburgh and Dalkeith RAILWAY COMPANY Appellants. A PRIVATE Act of Parliament made for the construction of a railway gave to W., a landed proprietor, through whose land the railway was to pass, "the sum of one halfpenny per ton upon all goods and articles upon which a tonnage duty is charged or chargeable in virtue of this Act." The section which empowered the railway company to levy a tonnage duty contained this clause: "For every carriage conveying passengers, or goods or parcels not exceeding five cwt." a sum named. There were other clauses fixing the duty payable for goods, but there was no other which referred to passengers.-HELD, affirming the decree of the Court of Session, that the company was empowered to levy a tonnage duty on carriages according to their weight, when containing passengers; and that the sum to be paid to W. must be calculated on the tonnage so levied. W. had for some years received money on the tonnage levied on goods and parcels alone.-HELD that this did not prevent him from afterwards claiming payment on the tonnage duty on passengers. A party interested in the subject-matter of a private Act of Parliament will have his rights affected by its provisions, though it may have been introduced and passed without notice duly given to him. THE first Act under which the Appellants were formed into a company was passed in the year 1826 (7 Geo. 4, c. xcviii.), for "making a Railway from Edinburgh to the South Side of the River Northesk, near Dalkeith and Newbattle." While this Act was in progress through Parliament, the Respondent, who was a proprietor of lands on the line of the proposed railway, opposed the bill, but finally abandoned his opposition, on being satisfied with certain clauses which were introduced into the bill. The 20th section of the Act provided that the company of pro EDINBURGH v. WAUCHOPE. prietors "shall pay to the said J. W. (and other 1842. persons therein mentioned), so long as the said railshall continue to be used through the said lands way or grounds of the said J. W., the sum of one halfpenny per ton upon all goods and articles upon which a tonnage duty is chargeable or charged in virtue of this Act, which shall pass along any part of the said railway standing within the said lands and grounds of the said J. W., except the coals and other minerals, corn and other articles, the produce of the said lands and estate." The 85th section contained the following provisions; "It shall be lawful for the company of proprietors from time to time and at all times to ask, demand, take, recover, and receive to and for the use and benefit of the said company, for the tonnage and conveyance of all minerals, goods, wares, merchandises, and other things which shall be carried or conveyed on the said railway, the rates and duties following: For every carriage conveying passengers, or goods or parcels not exceeding five cwt., such sum or sums of money respectively as the said company of proprietors shall from time to time direct and appoint, not exceeding 6 d. per ton per mile." Another Act of Parliament (the 4 & 5 W. 4, c. lxxi.) was afterwards applied for and obtained, which repealed some of the provisions of the former Act, extended others, and continued the rest. The 16th section of this new Act recited that whereas certain sums of money in respect of way-leaves had been granted to the Respondent and others, it enacted that the company of proprietors might collect the sums for the way-leaves separately from the rates and duties levied on the main line of the railway, provided that such rates and way-leaves should not exceed the duties authorised by the former and by that Act of |