Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-28 00:00:00

that point, hut thought there were other questions to go to
the jury. Mr. James then addressed the jury, contending
that there had been no evidence given of negligence upon
the part of the railway company. He urged that the
address upon the goods was not correctly given ; that the
company were misled by it ; that under the circumstances it
was the duty of the consignee to have called for the goods ;
and that as the defendants could not find the proper person,
the course they pursued, in storing the goods in their yard,
was the necessary and proper one. Witnesses were called
to prove that none of the employees of the railway com-
pany knew anything of Mr. Samuel Mayall ; that they be-
lieved the goods to be directed to a Mr. William Mayall,
and made various inquiries among the waste dealers of
Oldham about a person of that name, but could find no
such person. Under these circumstances the course which
it was thought most proper to parsue was, to plaee the
goods in the company's yard ; and the company alleged that
every proper and reasonable, care had been taken of them.
The jury found for the plaintiff, with damages £25. His
lordship gave the defendants leave to move.
FRANCIS V. HAWKSLEY. THE RIVINGTON PIKE
SCHEME..—This was an action brought by Mr. Absalom
Francis against Mr. Hawksley, the eminent engineer,
especially known in Liverpool in connection with the
Rivington Pike scheme. Mr. Brett opened the proceed-
ings ; Mr. James, Q C., stated the case. He said the plain-
tiff, Mr. Francis, jun., was an engineer, and the defendant,
Mr. Hawksley, was a very eminent engineer with respect
to water works, and who had the chief control of that
great scheme which was so much agitated in the town of
Liverpool during several years, and had since been carried
fully into effect —what was commonly called the Pike
scheme. During the course of the prosecution- of that
scheme great diferences of opinion existed in the Town
Councirof Liverpool, and among the inhabitants at large,
which led to the procrastination of the works, and their occu-
Wring a much longer time than originally contemplated. The
plaintiff was employed at the beginning of the scheme at
Rivington by the Corporation of Liverpool, at a salary of
five guineas a week, and during the time they were pro-
secuting their scheme in parliament he was paid the ordi-
nary amount paid to gentlemen of his position—two guineas
a day. In October, 1848, the plaintiff was employed, at
the recommendation of Mr. Halyksley himself, to go to
Glasgow, for the purpose of superintending the construction
and moulding of pipes by various contractors in that neigh-
bourhood. The pipes were to be used in carrying out the

great Pike scheme. He went there in the —month of
October, 1848. Owing to the scheme having been so much
opposed, the scheme was not prosecuted as vigorously by
the Corporation as it would have been under other circum-
Originally it was thought that 18 months would

stances,

have sufficed io finish the pipes, but for the reasons men-
tioned, the plaintiff was kept in Glasgow until
the 6th of March, 1852. He claimed from the defendant a
guinea and a-half per week during that time, being in all
£278 153 6d. He was to be paid by the Corporation three
guineas a week. Mr. Hawksley being the engineer to the
Corporation, it was most important to him that he should
have his interests looked after by the inspector appointed to
superintend the execution of the works for the Corporation
in Glasgow, and therefore with the full knowledge and
approbation of the Town Council he agreed to pay the
plaintiff a guinea and a-half per week, out of his own
pocket, in order that the plaintiff might look after his
interests also. For that amount the plaintiff now came into
court. The pipes were completed in 1852, and the plaintiff
then left Glasgow, He applied to Mr. Hawksley to be paid,
but Mr. Hawksley told him he had not then any claim,
as the contract was, that the pipes should be
proved to be good. The plaintiff was forced to
submit to this, as such was in fact the effect
of the contract, and he had therefore to wait until some
time in 1857. The pipes were found to answer the 'pur-
pose, and everything was correct. The plaintiff again
endeavoured to obtain from Mr. Hawksley the payment of
the amount, and various attempts were made by him, to that
end, but without success. Ultimately he was driven to
bring his action in that Court. The defendant had paid

)f the claim, that he was never indebted, and also a set-off

turdav evoun

Mr. James then read the correspondence in the case, which
consisted principally of letters from Mr. Hawksley to Mr.
Francis. Much amusement was created in court by

ling of some pass,

s in the letters,

which

iaents made

zi some of the Liver-

useless, and tha
Ir. Hawksley urge

the pipes burA like

el- had acc

was caused to t

Lie Scotch houses by such

libels,'

which the Liverpool papers published " for purposes of their
own," and referred in especial to the Liverpool Journal.
Ir. Hawksley added, however, the consolatory reflection
f no authority."

yuriial was known to be a pa

cquired the distinctive
title of Irish witticisms," in " ludicrouS allusion to the
name and the country of the proprietor." (Great laughter.)
Many passages of the correspondence referred to the dis-
putes going on in the Town Council upon the Itivington
scheme, and some in particular were dwelt upon by Mr.
JaMPS. in whir}, ;4. ,presarPti

Francis against complaints r

r in th

Town Council, in order to show the high
. .

opinion

'tabled of his character and

abilities. Mr. Francis, the plaintiff, was examined,
and deposed as to the nature of the services he had
to perform in Glasgow, the distances he had to traverse—
especially the fact that once in every week he had to go to
Kilmarnock, a distance of 30 miles—and the manner in
which his whole time was occupied. Mr. Atherton, Q.C.,
who appeared with Mr. Miilward for the defence, said there
was no question raised as to those facts. The question was—
what was the bargain made ? The examination was con-
tinued, and the letters from the defendant to the plaintiff,
1849, January, 1849, March. 1849. April.

of February

1849, and October, 1849, were, read,
showing what the nature of the- agreement wa

for the purpose of
Cross-

examined by Mr

Atherton, Q.O

The action is carried on

_ I have not made it over to Mr. Quick. I was
indebted to Mr. Quick, a gentleman in the Town-clerk's
office. I have undertaken to pay him out of this claim, if
I receive it. I shall have to pay it, whether I gain this
Nrmfield. The latter was sentenced to six action or not. Mr. Quick has not interfered with Mr.
_ _ _ _

lt AT ELTON

William Bleakl

Hawksley in reference to this claim otherwise than as
; he has spoken to Mr. Hawksley about-it

iend ofwitn

having assaulted in

Draper, on the 4th ins

Mr. Quick finds the funds in this case at least drportion of
them, lam aware that Mr. Quick delivered a statement of
my case to Mr. Hawksley, but I do not know whether the
statement produced is the document or not. There was a
promissory note of mine passed to Mr. Hawksley for £BO,
dated March, 1852 ; I have not paid anything upon that
note. Mr. Hawskley did not tell me that my engagement
in reference to _ the cashing would not exceed eighteen

The prosecutor and the

months. I believe Mr. Ilawksley had no pecUniary
interest in the pipes, and that the only interest he had in
their manuracture was as it concerned his own character
igineer. To - His •Lordship :
paid me three guineas a-week
52. Mt

Ind reputation as an
The Liver

A Corporatio'

TTawl

id which contained the expression that "Mr
liability for the extra salary would cease fror
ier letter from the plaintiff to Mr Hawks

). AT
read, winch. in

ley that a depu

Town Council, consisting. of Messrs

substai

e extra amount

mination, plaintiff stated
Mr. Hawkesley, in 1852,

0 from

larv. will

tended, I

the view c

He commented in very
sued by the plaintiff

by- the stau

I he should be. ate:

a certain document in evidence, to d

'.)e cora-,

up' to the 6th of- March, le. Atherton cross-
examined the plaintiff as to a letter from him to the Town-
clerk of Liverpool, dated in June, 1849, in reference to the
continuance of the extra amount of salary which he- wa,
receiving, ,-,-- '

aou uoposect that when he first arranged with plaintiff abo
going _to Glasgow, he explained to him what hiS dt
would be, and the time in which the work was to
pleted by the specification ; told" him it was to be within
eighteen months, of which already some little time had fun,
' reducing it to about. fifteen months. The plaintiff objected
that the duties would be very Et, duous, and the pay very
small ; witness said it was very small but 'he could not get the