The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-10-23 00:00:00

HIGH PEAK JUNCTION CANAL.

ni.*Otir. N. WALTON. LOSILEY, WOODS, GRAY,
AND °THESIS.
This was an action to recover It 4/. 15s. Gd. for
work and labour done,)lor which the Defendants
'tad promised to pay. The Defendants pleaded the
genersrirsue, and the Statute of Limitations.
Mr. ScaittAcre stated the case. He said, that
the Plaintiff *as Mr. hermits, the engineer,
concerning whose merits and distinction in his pro-
fessiou ally observation from him was unnecessary.
11, they must be .perfectly well known to all
who heard him. In that Gentleman England
could boast of the greatest engineer in the world—
rd a man consulted on all public designs of im-
portance, not only in his own country, but by every
.aline in t urope. He (Mr. Scarlett) had himself
,he pleasure of knowing Mr. Rennie, and in meet-
,,;.! with him it had frequeutly occurred to his
nand what a rare felicity it was to one individual to
hare planned sod superintended the structure of
.liree of the proudest efforts of human art and indus-
try, awl the noblest motiumentr of human geniis;
Waterloo-bridge, the bridge iit the end of that street
(the Southwark), and the Plymouth Breakwater.
•fhe time of such an individual, it was apparent,
was highly valuable; any man's time was worth
what he could make of it; and it would he no .ex-
cuse to the Defendants to say they could get Mr.
A. or Mr. B. to do 'bat the Plaintiff bad executed
on their acrouni, rot a smaller remuneration. It
would appear, that in the year 1810 the Defend-
ants had formed themselves into a Committee in
the Metropolis, for the purpose of applying to Par-
ildineot for its sanction to undertake and to ca-
1, rt subscriptions towards the formation of ti new 1
cmril, to be celled the High Peak Junction—that
they appointed clerks, Rad held different meetings
with this object. Thinking that the enterprise held
out a prospect of considerable advantage and emo-
lument to those who would embark in it, they em-
ployed Mr. Rennie to assist the engineer previously
appointed in the country to make the surveys,
and draw up the necessary plans preparatory to
the application to the Legislature ; being probably
anxious to have the countenance of his recommen-
dation and advice, aware that it would deservedly
weigh much with a Committee either of the
!louse of Lords or the House of Commons, and
be • powerful inducement to the public to
venture their property in the speculation. Accord-
ingly they caused him to give his opinion on the
then imperfect plans, and directed him to go down
to Derbyshire, where the intended hoe lay, to make
a survey, and verify, and, if necessary, correct the
surveys of his coadjutor. At their request, he also
composed a prospectus, giving minute details of
the proposed work, to be submitted to the public,
with the view of procuring subscribers. He did
every thing that was required of him. For some
reasons, however, with which the Plaintiff had
i to concern. the idea of the *lnk was abandon-
ed. Mr. Rennie sent in his bill, and no objec-
tion was ever made to it. He was not in a
harry for payment ; but after a considerable lapse
of time, lie applied personally to different indivi-
duals among them to be informed to whom he was
to apply to have his account discharged, but could
get no satisfactory answer. A written correspond-
trice then ensued between him and Mr. Pearson
Walton, but without any good effect. Under these
circumstances, he was compelled, in the year 1816,
to direct Messrs. Weston and Teesdale. solicitors,
to write to the Defendants ; and on that occasion
Mr. Walton addressed a letter to the Plaintiff,
which would clearly take the case out of the Statute
, of Limitations.—[This letter will be found lower
down.]—lt only remained to say, that Mr. Rennie
was yet unpaid, and finally found himself under the
necessity of prosecuting the action.
• Mr. Heath was then examined. He recollected
the Defendants forming a Committee in 1810 to
undertake a canal, called the High Peak Junction.
He and Mr. Sloper were made clerks to them. Mr.
Sloper is abroad ; attended different meetings of
the Committee ; knows that all these Defendants
attended there at one time or another as members
thereof. Mr. Rennie attended the Committee from
time to time, and witness received instructions to
correspond with him ; the witness then produced
different letters, dated io September or October,
1810, addressed to Mr. Rennie, and written by
himself or Slope'', directing him in the name of the
London Committee, the first, to see Mr. Brown,
the county surveyor, before leaving Manchester, in
order to revise his plan, to be deposited, pursuant
to Act of Parliament, with the Clerk of the Peace.
The others. directing him to transmit his report to
the Committee on the intended line, and informing
him of a meeting to be held subsequently at the
George and Vulture, Cornhill, to receive a more
detailed report. The report was also read, which
witness stated the Plaintiff caused to be p . dat the
desire of the Committee. and circulated among the
subscribers : also a draft of an agreement among
several members of the Committee, copied into
three books, to receive the signatures of the remain-
der of the subscribers, in the following terms :
tt We approve and appoint Mr. John Rennie to be
our engineer."
Cross-examined.—Has no positive knowledge
whether Mr. Rennie was applied to by the Corn-
tuittee sitting at Manchester or at London. At the
dithrent meetings in London, Mr. Reouit's name
and employment were the subject of conversatiou;
has not been paid yet himself.
The letter front Mr. Walton to the Plaintiff was
then read, it was to the following effect :

" February 28, 1818.
6111..0a my arrival from Manchester, I was extremely
sorry to find you should think it Necessary to commence lets'
proceedings spigot me respecting the High Peak Junction
Canal. I am awry that your bill has mut bees discharged
lung sioce—it has not have owing to soy neglect or relax.-
tins of cooties@ on my part that it bas sot. As 1 do mit
mutate* having iodrvidually employed you, I gusset but
think it ratios hard that I abeold be Cagiest out as the sub-
ject of as amiss, particularly wham it is coosidered what
imputes sad ism of time has bees already Coerced by me
is the triessctioa. At least I &might yop would hey.
waited till a reference had been made to the High Peak
Joactise Casa! Camipsoy, they heists is jostles Wooed to
discharge you tioissed. If yea CHI statist to Ilda delays

.•, s s
tadt
they refuse, 1 sheihl have no objection to contribute
ety fair proporthm.of your demand. - '. • •
• " 'P. 'WA t.tON,
• Mr. MAltitTkl7, for the Defendant, argued,
that there was no evidenee of the Plaintiff having
been.employed by the D•fendauta, or of any inti-
mation that they were to be responsible for his de-
mands.

The CHIEF JUSTICE inclined to the opinion, that
Owe was satisfactory evidence of both these point*:
and the Jury accordingly found a verdict fur the
Plaintiff, with full ditinaoer.
ELOXASI AND OTHERS t. ELLIOTT.

This was en action by the assignees of a Mr,
Fourdrinirr spinal the Defendant, to recover •
eum of 751.. being the amount of th►ee quarterly
payments, according to the terms of an agreement
entered into previous to the bankruptcy between
the partici; in consideration of the Defendant's be-
ing granted the use of a ue►r machine. for the more
rapid manufacture of paper, for which a Mr. Gam-
ble and Mr. Fourdrinier, now the sole proprietor,
had obtained a Recut on the original invention.
and which was afterwards thought of such publ•c
utility, and such ingenuily and industry in the
contrivance, that the Legislature granted a further
extension of the term. on conditio►► that a speci-
fication of the invention, with She improrements,
should be recorded in the Court of Chancery
within six months. The Defendant pleaded,
that he was not bouul by the contract. inasmuch
as such a specification as the law required had not
been recorded, and on this fact the issue was taken.
The enrolment of the specification in Chancery was
proved ; and the ispeOfication, an accompanying ex-
planatory drawing, and a model of the machine,
were exhibited.

Mr. Bryan Donkin, a civil engineer. sta!eil, that
the model had been formed according to the Act of
Parliament, and that the specification and drawing
corresponded with the machinery, except to minute
parts, and that the principle of the machine hail
been so plainly described, that any engineer or inge-
nious mechanic turning his attention to the subject
could construct one without being obliged to have
recourse to experiments.
Mr. W. J. Brunell. inventor of the block ma-
chi wery at Portsmouth, corroborated the testimony
of Mr. Donkin, and said, that he had never seen a
more satisfactory drawing of any invention.
The Defendant's leading Counsel, Mr. SCAR.
LETT, contended, that the specification and draw-
ing were defective, insufficient, and illegal, for two
reasons—lst, Because there was no scale of parts
added to the drawing ; and, Wily, because it was
not expressed therein that all the pints bore that
proportion to each other which would be required in
the actual construction of a machine.

Mr. Donkin was then called a second time. and
in answer to a question by the Chief Justice, said.
that if one material part of the machine were first
made of a certain size, and all the other parts after-
wards added in the same proportion in which they
were laid down on the plate—a perfect machine
would be formed. His Lordship, in charging the
Jury, expressed his opinion that the objections of
the Defendant were not well founded—and a ver-
dict for 751. was given in for the Plaintiff.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.
FRIDAY, OCTOBIIII 34.

At the opening of the Court this morning, the
Clerk read a new Commissionorhich had been issued
to the Magistrates to hold the Sessions. The old
Commission had become so obliterated, that it was
found necessary to issue a new one under the Great
Seal.