The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-16 00:00:00

COURT OF REC.HROORR.—YwrzsoAt.

_
&alum in SSW&
HOMIRSHAH V. TIM WOLTIREAYPTON WATERWORKS
COYPANT.--BEERET 01 A DUD lINDSR EIRAL.—THM was
an action brought by an engineer to recover compensation
for services rendered to the defendants At the trial before
the Lent Chief Swan, at Westminster, during the late sit-
tings, it appeared a deed under seal had been executed by
the parties with respect to the mice in which the works in
1 welkin were to be performed. It was therein a frt.
lined that there should be no deviation MIS the pleas spec".
lied without the written instructions of the directors.
Shortly alter the works were commenced the directors
IMO desirous that they should be executed upon
a different plan from that specified in the deed.
The pleintiff, without taking tee precaution of first
()Mak* the directors' written orders, complied with their
verbal desires, and so executed the works. He was after-
wards refused payment, and then this action was com-
mented. On the production of the deed at the trial, it was
objected that as the stipulations it contained had been
&t Sod from the plaintiff mold not recover. The learned
Fi as
• held that the deed contained a provision that no
d Con HIM the pima therein set forth should be made un-
less authorised by the &median in writing of the directors,
land so evidence 'having bee. given of a new express contract
for the work, which was the subject of the action,
ethics°, of en implied coestrect could not be received, and
the plaintiff should be nonsuited. A verdict was, however,
mitered fee the deft/admits, m the plei.airs counsel refused
to submit to a nonenit—Mr. Martin, Q.C., obtained a rule
nisi for a sew trial yesterday on the around of misdirection.
THOMPSON AND FORMAN V. BAILIE Ago OTHERS.—
BLUER or Conshacr.—This was an action brought by
the plaintiffe, the well-known iron manniseturem, to recover
compensation fres the defendantewho awry on the business
o: iron-masters fa Liverpool and Wales, for an alleged breach
of comma. Oa the 20th of April, 1847, the defendants
bought 2,000 toes of iron rails of the plaintiffs. It was stipu-
lated they should be good and seerchentable, of doable-
headed action, weighing not less than 701 b. nor wore than
821 b. per yard, at Si. 17e. 6d. per ton, and delivered free on
baud ia Wales. A tesplate of the rails was to have
bees leaded to the plaintiffs within a week after the
contrast, mad delivery at the rate of 500 to 1,000 was
per mouth. Early is May the plalatille wrote for tho
*sapid*, sad the defiadrals peatiierd to mad it in
a hw dale. They Shea Nat a pine slim rail, and required
that the rails to be dipald sot be ler than
71113. per yard. Abosarte= el the math the
assepledor Bplain-
tile teats
sa ionise and dalhaeppease/ 737 task but they
=a grew they were it was.
br Ili 4 who admittedw the het.
It was heel open essmierdis est 600 teas of asps rails

were 721 b. per yard, and they, with 600 to mei@ 'A the t.
requisite shape and weight, were tendered to the dersadaats
and refused by them. They were refused ea the r...reurd that
as the Plaintiff" had not performed their Peat "of the under-
takieg the cognac might be rescinded. f 3 ,raaa the present
action. For the plaintiffs it was contend, aat the trial that
they had fulfilled their contract
.67 udering, within the
limited tire, rails of the specified •Ina •AM weight; that they
were not bound o manufacture the r ails themselves, and that
those tendered were as near the sir and weight n gaited as
could, under the cirecimatimees, be supplied.—The Lord Chief
Baron told the jury that the pl.,datigs bad performed their
Dart of the contract by tender Ang the first 1,000 tons of rails.
But, even though they head not delivered or tendered the
nquired quantity within the specified time, the d. Pendants,
who had never given a tinplate, could not repudiate the
contract altogether, as they bad done.—A verdict having
passed for the ple:intifb for 3,3761, Sir F. Thesiger, Q C ,
obtained a rale :fief yesterday to reduce the damages or for
• new Vial, or. the ground of misdirection, and that the ver-
dict was 'against evidence.
Vimmat s. H was an action for
a Lbel published in the Medical Times, of which the ce-
Student was editor and proprietor. The libel complained of
cassisved of comments upon the plaintiff's having advertised
fa the newspapers certain surgical operations performed by
him at the Royal Free Hospital, Gray's-inn lane, to which
institution he was surgeon. The case was tried before the
Lord Chief Baron at Quit hall last sittings, when the jury
Mond a so edict for the plaintiff, with forty shillings I
damage.-1 be defendant in person applied yesterday for •
rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why that verdict
should not be set aside, at.,' ri venire de novo awarded or a
sew trial had, un the groutot of misdirection ; or why the
ijudgment eh( aid not he ~rreetcd ; tit. fleet count of the de
clued Ai inz array bit'. and thv damages found by the
I jury were fp nerat. The cruel were of ephuir o that there
was no misdirection, but upon the last pout • rale nisi to
arrest the judgment laid for a new trial was as-anted.