The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings la lease.
COLLINS AND OTHERS V. GITLES.—RATLWAY ENGINEERS.
—Tho plaintiffs, as promoters of the Dudley and Madely
Railway scheme, sued the defendant, an engineer, for not
having the plans and sections of that line prepared to be
deposited before the 30th of November last, pursuant to his
contract. At the trial, which took place at Worcester, be-
fore Mr. Justice Maule, it appeared, that in consequence
of the defendant not having the surveys ready, the
plaintiffs were obliged to abandon their proposed scheme,
and effect an amalgamation with a rival company. The
defendant had actually received 4,0001., during the progress
of the survey, but a comparatively small sum—about 300/.
reached his pocket, the difference having been paid away
by him to subordinate officers who had been actually em-
ployed in making the surveys. There were two questions
left to the jury ; first, whether the defendant was liable for
negligence; and secondly, if so, fur what amount of damages.
The learned judge told the jury that as engineers were very
highly remunerated, they should be held responsible, to the
utmost extent, for their negligence, and it appeared that, in
consequence of the defendant's not having performed his
contract, the shares in the proposed undertaking were
diminished in value so much as 18,0001. The verdict, how-
ever, passed fur the plaintiff for 4,5001., and Mr. Whately
now moved to arrest the judgment, or for a new trial, on the
ground that the damages were excessive. In support of the
first branch of the motion, it was contended that the decla-
ration was defective, for not having distinctly stated the con-
tract and duty upon the part of the defendant to have the
plans, &c., completed before the 30th of November. As to
the damages, it appeared that the defendant bad not been
guilty of any negligence, but that be worked night and day
without intermission, and that his failure arose from circum-
stances beyond his control ; yet it was alleged that the learned
judge so charged the jury that it was surprising they did not re-
turn a verdict for 18,0001. The Court, however, were ofopinion
that there should be no rule. The allegation in the declara-
tion was quite sufficient after verdict, and there did not
appear to be any reason to object to the summing up of the
learned judge. The verdict should not, therefore, be dis-
turbed, and the rule should be refused.
REYN ELL V. LEWIS.—ANOTHER RAILWAY CASE.—The
Attorney-General, on behalf of the defendant, moved for a
new trial in this case, which was heard during the sittings
after last term, before the Lord Chief Baron. The defendant
was sued as a provisional committeeman of the Central Kent
Railway Company, and the action was brought for adver-
tisements of that scheme, inserted in the newspapers by
the directions of the solicitors. At the trial it appeared
that the defendant consented to act as a committeeman,
but that he had never interfered in the management
of the affairs of the company—that he had merely
called at their office once or twice, and inquired how
things were getting on ; that no regular meeting of the com-
mittee had ever been held, and that no shares were allotted.
The ground of the present motion was the misdirection of
the learned judge, who told the jury that the defendant was
personally liable, if they believed he consented to act as a
provisional committeeman, as he had, by so contenting, held
himself out to the public as a person responsible for the rea-
sonable expenses of the company, and the work was there-
fore done upon the credit of his name, and that of the other
persons who composed the provisional committee. It was
now contended that the questions which should have been
left to the jury were, first, with whom the contract was
actually made, and next, whether the solicitors were autho-
rised to pledge the defendant's credit for the plaintiff's
demand. The court took time to consider their deciasion.
Wawa V. WATTS.—INTERESTING TO RAILWAY LEVI-
OANTIL—The importance attachable to this case arises from
the difference of opinion (as to the liability of provisional
committeemen) which existed between the Lord Chief Baron
and Mr. Justice Cresswell. The action was brought against
a provisional committeeman of the Irish West toast Rail-
way Company, by one of the traffic-takers of that under-
taking, who was employed on the 27th of September, 1845,
by a person named Campbell, the authorised agent of the
company. It appeared at the trial, which took place before
Mr. Justice Cresswell, that the defendant acted as a provi-
sional committeeman, and, about the middle of July, 1845,
accepted of a number of shares to which he was en-
titled as a member of that body. On the Bth of No-
vember following, he had his name formally regis-
tered, pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Stock
Company's Act, and it was, therefore, contended that he
was liable for the demand of the plaintiff, who had ren-
dered services necessary for the purpose of carrying out the
projected undertaking, and who was employed by the an-
thorised agent of the company. The learned judge, how-
ever, thought otherwise, end nonsuiled the plaintiff.
Mr. Martin now moved for a rule to show cause why there
should not be a new trial. The 9uertion as to the extent of
the liability of provisional committeemen was of very gene-
ral importance and it was equally important to determine,
as far as possible, the right of a learned judge, sitting at
Nisi Prews, to nonsuit a suitor merely because he should
happen to entertain a private opinion that the defendant's
liability was not fully establiehed. The Court granted a rule
to show cause.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. coomLssioner Fonblanque.
ALLEOED PREFEEENCE.-1.). A. Morel, a dentist, whose
Case it 994 orer for a short time, to ascertain what with