The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-15 00:00:00

COURT_OF COMMON PLEAS.

Neu Pane.—Be nee Mr. Justice Coln= sad a Common Jury,.
GANNON 0. NALLADY.—CLAIM BY A RAILWAY UR-
TEYOR.—Mr. Serjeant Dylan and Mr. Keane fur the plain-
tiff, Mr. Ilumfrey and Mr. Miller for the defendant. Tbis
was an action brought by the plaintiff, a surveyor, against
the defendant, as one of the directors of the L,udon and
Birmingham Extension, and Warwick and Worcester Rail
ways, to recover 141/. 10s., the balance of an account alleged
to he due to the plaintiff for work done in respect to those
railways. It appeared from the evidence addue:d for the
plaintiff, that he was employed by the company from the lat-
ter end of October to the 29th of November, 1846, that he
bad received a payment of 95/. on account of his services, and
that he was entitled to a further sure of 1441. 10s. for work
done between the 9th and 29th of November. The ground
upon which this claim was sought to be established was thst,
according to an understanding between the plaintiff and the
company, the former was to receive five guineas a day as a
leveller ; and he contended that the money which had been
paid to him only satisfied his demand up to the 9th of No-
vember. On the part of the defendant, Mr. Pritchard, act-
ing engineer to the rail rays in question, was called, and he
stated that the plaintiff had been employed by him and not
by the defendant, or any of the directors. He had originally
agreed to pay him at the rate of one guinea and a half per
day, and had ultimately increased his eatery to three guineas
e a slay. The defeadant? case therefore was, that the plaintiff
been amply remunerated for his service*, according to
the agreement, and that supposing any further sum was
due to him, Mr. Pritchard was the person to whom he must
look for payment. On the other hand, the learned counsel
for the plaintiff relied upon a resolution, passed at • meeting
held on the 26th of August, 1845, to the effect that the com-
pany were to be responsible fur the expensce of the sur-
veys. It was farther contended that the mono y paid by Mr.
Pritchard was paid on account of the company.
Mr. Justice Coltman, in summiug up, told the jury that,
although the only contract binding upon the parties appeared
to have been made between the plaintiff and Mr. l'ntchard,
if they should be of opinion that Mr. Pritchard had the
authority of the directors to pledge their credit in respect to
the work done by the plaintiff, and that he did engage the
plaintiff upon such authority, the defendant would be liable,
notwithstanding the feet that the directors had not personally
entered into any contract. But if the contract was made
with Mr. Pritchard, upon the understanding that the plaintiff
should look to him as nis paymester, and not to the directors,
the defendant would not be liable. The second point for
them to consider was, whether or not the plaintiff was in
any event entitled to more than 961., the amount which he
had received from Mr. Pritetard. If the defendant was
liable at all, was he liable for anything beyond the sum
already paid ?—The jury retired, and after an absence of
half an hour, returned with a verdict for the defendant.