The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-13 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nut Palm—Wore Mr. Juetice Kele.
GREYS V. LVIESDEN.—LIASILITY or Facet/mum.
Cestatirrameme.—Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. E. James
appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. C.
Clark for the defendant. The action was brought against
Mr. Luisteden (who had been Lord Provost of Glasgow), as
one of the provisional committeemen of the Lincolnshire and
Eastern Counties Railway Company, to recover 3301., the
balance of a sum of 3801. due to the plaintiff' for lithograph-
ing the plans and sections. The defendant hod given his
written consent to act on the committee ; his name hal ap-
peared in the printed prospectuses; he had agreed to take
shares as one of the committee, and he had interested him-
self to get the Clydesdale bank appointed one of the bankers
of the company. This was all the evidence against him
upon the close of the plaintiff's we.
Mr. Justice Erie said that according to the recent deei-
sinus there was not sufficient evidence to show that the de-
fendant Htreed to pledge his creditto any contemns that were
made. e would give leave to the defendant to move to
enter a nonsuit, and the opinion of the jury might be taken.
Sir F. Thesiger wished to take the opinion of the jury, as
there was another question
oft to whether the plaintiff was
employed by the promoters e company, Messrs. Beckett
end Loveland, the solicitors. He contended that they were
primarily liable, and could not get rid of that liability until
the appointment of come other functionaries, which had not
been done in this case, and they had actually given the
order for the work, and to them the credit was given.
Mr. Justice Erie said there could be no doubt that the
work had been done, that the charges were fair, and that the
plans were essentially necessary for the carrying on of the
company. It was also clear that the express contract had
been made through the means of Mr. Smith, the engineer,
and Messrs. Beckett and Loveland, the solicitors. There
were two questions for the jury. First, did these parties con-
tract on behalf of and to agents for the defendant; and if so,
wbsther they had authority to bind him. Unless the jury
were satisfied on those points by such a contract there must be
a verdict for the defendant. As to the first point, there mu no
evidence but the fact that Messrs Ikckett and Loveland, the
solicitors, were the promoters of the company, and that Mr.
!Width was the engineer, but it was shown that he had
=dung to do with the lithographing of theplans. The only
evidence that the defendant gave his authority to make coo-
tracts for him was his consent to act as provisional commit-
teeman, and his taking shares, which it had been held was
not sufficient.—Verdict for the defendant.
ELLIS V. OASIEROLL—INTRINOEMENT OP A PATENT
EOl RAILWAY TURN-TABLBS.—Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Martin,
Mr. Roteh, end Mr. Webster appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Baines, Mr. Watson, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Cowling
' for the defendants. This was an action brought by Mr. Ellie,
SD engineer, for the infringement of a patent for improve-
ments of railway weighing machines and turn-tables, which
be held in conjunction with Mr. Kennard, one of tbs sheriffs
of London, against Messrs R. and E. Ormerod, iron founders
at Manchester. The turn-tables are moveable platforms en
the line of rails which revolve for the purpose of turning
round and shifting carriages. By the old plan they were
placed upon rollers, which were always within some distance
of the internal circumferential circle of the platform, which
part of it did not rest on the rollers ; the consequence was that
when the first part of a train pawed over the turn-tables
there was a deflection which caused a shock to the carriages,
and the same thing took place when the last carriage
over.—Mr. Ellis, to remedy this, devised a plan which
had
been adopted on almost every line. Instead of leaving the
circumference near the end unsupported, he built a support
of solid masonry round the end of the external circumfer-
ence, and on that was an iron frame-work on which the plat:-
form rested, besides a central support. The consequence was,
that no deflection took place during the passage of a train.
This was thought to be so great an improvement that it was
adopted on almost all lines of railways, it having, besides, the
additional advantage of requiring no more repair than the
line of rails itself, which was not the case with the old plan.
The defenduna had been employed by the plaintiffs to
make the castings for these machines, and they had manu-
factured a similar turn-table for themselves, with only just
so much difffereace so to prevent the piracy being glaring.
For the plaintiff, a number of engineers, &c., including
Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Bidder, and Mr. Cubitt, were called
to prove that their plan was new and original, that it had
been adopted one great many lines; and that the defendant's
machines were almost identical with the plaintiff's. At the
close of the plaintiff's case, the court adjourned till to-

morrow.
80011 ill V. ORANT.—In this ease, which wu adjourned
yesterday, the parties subsequently came to an arrangement,
that each party should pay his own costs—all litigation to
cease, and the defendant to be allowed to publish his book.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fees. 11.
New Ibuco—Before the Lord Chief Juoties sod a Special Ivy.
OM= AND ANOTHER V. SIIITH.—FUILTRRR QUESTIONS
AS TO THU LIABILITY OP PROVISIONAL AND ACTING CON-
ityrrEimEN.—Mr. Seljeant ChaoneU and Mr. Pigott, for
the plaintiffs; Mr. Serpent Bytes and Mr. Bramwell, for
the defendant. This was one of 13 =limo brought by the
same plaintiffs (father and son), who were engineers, against
various persons as members of the provisional committee of
the Tunbridge and Rye Harbour Railway. Two of these
cases —" Giles v. Corafoot," and " Giles v. Bastow "
came on for trial on Wednesday and were reported in this
paper yesterday. In neither of 'those instances was the
lia-
bility of the defendant established, and the learned judge
having directed a nonsuit to be entered in the first case, the
record wee withdrawn in the second. The question in the
present case was whether or not there were any circum-
stances, beyond the fact of the defendant's name baying been
in the list of provisional committeemen. The sum claimed
by the plaintiffs was 1,5601., and the defendant's liability
was sought to be established by the following facts :—From
the evidence adduced for the plaintilb, it appeared that the
name of the defendant was published as a member of the
provisional committee in the second prospectus issued,
and that he had written a letter, contain en
application for shares, in which he had
himself a member of that committee. This letter
was dated early in October, 1845, and. on the 16th of
that month a meeting of the provisional committee
took place, when certain resolutions were proposed and
adopted. It was agreed that an acting committee should be
formed, and that the defendant should be one of the mem-
bers, and that the plaintiffs should be the engineers to the
company, Messrs. Elmalie and Preston the solicitors, and
Mr. Lambe, the secretary. The minutes of these proceedings
were now produced, to show that the employment of the
plaintiffs commenced on the occasion mentioned, and further
evidence was given to prove that at the same meeting a
deputation was appointed to go down to Cranbrook for the
purpose of conferring with certain gentlemen who were in-
terested in the projected line. Accordingly a meeting took
place at Cranbrook, and on that occasion it was resolved
, " that the salaries remunerative to the officers of the com-
' piny (viz. the engineers, solicitors, and secretary) and the
promoters be payable on: of the deposits, and not otherwise,
land that the provisional committee be not held responsible
for the same." This occurred on the 20th October, and it
that after the deputation had been received in a
=il ueun, a discussion occurred at the fall assembly, in
nolemmee te the prospects of the company. Whereupon Mr.
PreeMs, and a gentleman named Laurence (according to
the ref sess given by the secretary), addressed the meeting,
and some of the country gentlemen there present expressed
certain apprehensions about the expenses, and derlinedhav-
' big any thing to de with the line unless it was understood
I that they should be secure against all liability. Mr. Preston,
it was alleged, then stated, that if the deposits were found
insufficient, he would pay the expenses himself, and that the
provisional committee were not to be held liable. Upon this,
somebody remarked that it was likely to be a profitable con-
cern, and one of the plaintiffs said it was all right now the
country gentlemen had joined it. On the same occasion,
according to the evidence, Lord Beresford, Capt. King, actl
Mr. Hodges, who bad been requested to belong to the pro-
visional committee, stated that they would allow their names
to be used provided they were not to be held responsible. In
addition to this evidence, a letter was produced, dated Nov.
4, 1845, and addressed by Mr. Preston to the plaintiffs.
It wee to this effect:" I mentioned your request about
the 5001. to the directors of the Tunbridge and Rye
Harbour Railway, and they say that in the present state of
the market they should be glad if yeti will postpone it till
the cud of the month, by which time they have no doubt
they will be in ample funds to meet all claims." It was
further proved that the meeting of the provisional commit-
tee, which took place on the 16th of October, wee adjourned
to Oct. 27, on which occasion the defendant was present.
The minutes of the proceedings at the first meeting were
then read over, and it was contended that the defendant,
being present, and having received notice that he was ap-
pointed a member of the acting committee, on the 18th,
was a party to those proceedings, including the reselation
by which the plaintiffs were employed as engineers to the
company. The meeting of the 27th Oct. was adjourned to
Nov. 3, when the affair was mentioned which led to the letter
of Nor. 4. Upon these facts it wascontended for the defendant
that he was not liable, end for these mama :—ln the first
piece the only written; contract produced was the document
Monies Met tie salaries of the officers would be paid out of
Ike detteekts, sod that the provisional committee were not to
he held rammeible. The learned counsel urged that this
seatract did mot bind the defendant as a member of the
Ming econsnittee, and se there was no evidence of any other
stsinet, it was quite dear that the plaintiffs could not look
Ow maga escept foam the " deposits." The next ground
as wrier the dsiondent denied his liability was, that the
plaudits were appointed engineers to the company at the
sense Meeting Oa the lOth anther) that he (the defendant)
beams a member ef:ssestratiemusittee : so that, in fact,
totb=foreld Odle wet have been without his
. On the the deism wee that the defendant
wee me piety te the appointment of the plaintiffs, and that
there was me peed ef hie Issiving ex/seemed his aentw on a
eserekm. Battle t mainly relied span
wee, the plektiffs hod se
emandttes, Immo& as it wee smilm=he theser=i
GM el the demob,.
Mr. ffejeent Bytes submitted that Owe was se 'whines
lea%the jury, but the learned j=ll mattery
anit'sibeefestala theimessj. rinessehariblee "see dm mikorteemmittme. Ike
ender kleiheispaseteetieend the emphoynome sgs awn_
oggi. Tioo then um, whether the *dal&
they
Weed duties open the medeneemileg that they wove
to be pahli ens of the toes or nbethest they had depended