The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COL AT OF QUEEN'S BEiNcti, :20

LORD HOWDEN V. SIMPSON, KNIGHT, AND OTHERS.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff
upon an agreement which was set forth in the declaration,
and which was to the following effect :—That the defendant
was the officer of a Company, called the North Mid-
land Railway Company; that the members of the said
Company were 'lesirous of getting a Bill through Par-
liament to authorise them to make a railway ; that the
proposed line f railway would interfere materially with
the Noble plaintiff's property, and that lie I,ad lee1:1;ed
his jntention to oppose it on that aceoani, ; that it
was thereupon agreed that if he would withdraw his oppo.
sition he should be paid tire sum of 5,0001. within six
months after the Royal assent -should be given to the Bill ;
that the Company, besides, undertook to use every en-
deavour to procure another Bill to be passed in the follow,
ing Session of Parliament for a deviating line, and that
the plaintiff was to have such compensation as should be
awarded in respect of any damage that might be occasioned
to his property by such deviating line, the compensation
to be settled by arbitrators named on the agreement, and
he was to have 1001. an acre for every acre of land actu-
ally taken by the Company. The defendant pleaded, first,
that after the making of the contracts, and before the com-
mencement of the suit, the proprietors of the Company
abandoned the line of road stated in the agreement,
and resolved to adopt another line, which said line entirely
missed the property of the plaintiff ; the second plea was,
that the said railway was intended to pass through the lands
of divers individuals, and this said agreement with the
plaintiff was entered into secretly and privately, and was
not known to the other individuals whose interests were
affected by the said railway, nor was it known to Parlia-
ment, but that it was concealed from the Legislature
during the passing of the Bill, and that the plaintiff was a
Peer of the realm, &c. The plaintiff demurred to this
plea, and the defendants joined in demurrer. The case
had been before the Lord Chancellor, who referred the
parties to a Court of law to try the question of the validity
of the agreement.

Mr. CRESWELL (with whom were Mr. Alexander and
Mr. Wightman), for the plaintiff, contended that the plea
could not be supported, that the agreement was a valid
agreement, and ought to be enforced. The first plea
amounted to an allegation that the consideration was
gone, as the adoption of the new line of railway was
altogether out of the line of the plaintiff's property.
That, however, was not the consideration of the agree-
ment. The sum of money agreed to be paid in the first in-
stance was a consideration to the plaintiff to withdraw the
oppo:ition he had intended to make to the Bill—that oppo-
sition he was entitled to make as a landowner ; he had not
made it, and he had therefore performed his part of the
agreement, and the other part ought to be performed by
the defendant. The only condition precedent in the agree-
ment was the withdrawing opposition to the passing of the
Bill. That condition having been performed, the plaintiff
was entitled to receive the consideration which had been
offered him. As to the second point, it was intended to be
argued that the plaintiff, being a Peer, could not enter into
such an agreement as this. But, in the first place, the plea
did not state the plaintiff to be a Peer, entitled to sit and
vote in Parliament.
Sir F. PoLLocx submitted that the Court would take
judicial notice of the station of a Peer in Parliament.
Lord DENMAN—I think it must be taken that the plain-
tiff is a Peer of Parliament, or that fact must be admitted
by the plaintiff ; or else we may amend the record by in-
serting that allegation.

CRESWEI.L was ready to proceed on the supposi-
tion that the record was so amended. Then, taking the
plaintiff to ;be a Peer of Parliament, he submitted that
the agreement was perfectly valid. In the case of the
Vauxhall Bridge Company v. Lord Spencer, it was held
by' Lord Eldon, in equity, that securities given to per-
sons who would be prejudiced by the passing of a pri-
vate Bill in Parliament, in consideration of their withdraw-
ing their opposition to it, was not illegal. That case must
govern the present. It was clear that this agreement was
made with the plaintiff, not as a Member of the Legislature,
but as a landowner, and there was no reason why in
that charaoter he should not make such an agreement.
If no Member of either House could do so, the result
would be that the property of Members of both Houses
would be utterly unprotected, and their situation as Legisla-
tors would leave them in a worse condition than any other
men in the country.
Sir F. PoLLocx (with whom was Mr. Addison) contended
for the defendant, that the plea was good, and that there must
be judgment for the defendant. The consideration of the
whole argument was, the injury which the proposed line of
railway would have occasioned to the property of the plain-
tiff. That anticipated injury was now at an end. The
new line bad been adopted, and did not touch upon the
plaintiff's property. Where, then, was the injury in respect
of which he was to claim the payment of 5,000/. from the
Court. There was none whatever. The agreement had
been made to meet a particular set of circum-
stances. That set of circumstances no longer ex-
isted. The agreement, therefore, was at an end,
'for the consideration on which it was founded was totally
gone. As to the second point, it was clear that this
agreement was illegal. In the first place, it was in fraud
of the other persons interested in the matter, because it was
made secretly from them, and without reference to their
interests ; and it was also a fraud upon the Legislature, and
Lord Howden could not, as a Peer, enter into it without
violating his duty. It was clear that other persons were
interested, and that Parliament ought to know the whole
of the reasons why a particular line of road was proposed,
or assented to, for otherwise those whose interests were
concerned might be most injuriously compromised, and for
that reason Parliament required a full statement as to the
assent or the dissent of the landowners through whose pro-
perty the line of road was to pass. Then, as to the public
duty of the plaintiff, the agreement bound him not to op-
pose the Bill. His character of landowner could not be
so easily separated, in such a case, from his character of a
Peer of Parliament. If he had assented to the bill at one

moment, and then gone into the House of Lords and voted
against it, would it have been possible to contend that he
could maintain an action on this agreement. It would not.
It was manifest therefore, that by private agreement he had
agreed to do that which it was against public polity to allow.
Of course, in his argument he had not intended to impute
that the Noble plaintiff had acted from an impure or impro-
per motive,but that the agreement was against'public policy.
Mr. CRESWELL replied, as his Learned Friend had re-
frained from imputing any unworthy motives to Lord
Howden, he would imitate his example, and leave it to
others to judge of the conduct of the defendants in the pre-
sent action. He contended that Lord Howden had done
everything required of him by the agreement, although the
Company had not hesitated to violate their part of the con-
tract. Now with respect to the first plea—
Lord DENMAN—We do not think there is anything in
the first plea.
Mr. CRESWELL would then apply himself to the other.
He denied that there was any foundation for the allegation
that Lord Howden was a party to the secrecy which was
observed. If parties went into a private room, as was fre-
quently done in cases before Committees of the House, the
agreement then entered might be called a pri-
vate one. With respect to the parties having applied
for a line which was not meant to be adopted, he ap-
prehended the arrangement with Lord Howden would
not weigh with the Legislature in deciding whether
another line ought or ought not to be granted, because the
Parliament was bound to decide upon the intrinsic merits
of each case presented to it. The Learned Counsel then
remarked upon the several cases cited by Sir F. Pollock,
and concluded by observing that he trusted their Lordships
would be of opinion that contracts of this sort, which in
other cases had been so sanctioned and recognized by the
Legislature as to have led Lord Eldon to state that they
were perfectly notorious," might be as well entered into
by Lord Howden as any other, the meanest man in the
land ; and that it was as perfectly legal on his part, as it
had not been attempted to be denied ort the other side, that
it was entered into and fulfilled in perfect good faith and
fairness.
The Court' took time to consider its decision.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 28.
WRIT OF RIGHT.--.-DAVIS V. LOWNDES,
(In continuation from our Report of yesterday.)
The Court thought that the objections raised to the ad-
missibility of the fine were questions of fact for the Grand
Assize rather than of law for the Judges ; and therefore
admitted the evidence.
The fine was put in and read, and the evidence further
proceeded with ; but the trial was not concluded when the
Court rose.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nor. 28.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SHILLIBEER.
This was an information filed by the Attorney. General
against the defendant for an infraction of the Customs laws.
As soon as the Jury were sworn,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the case had been
settled, the defendant's Counsel having consented that a
verdict should be entered to the amount of 980/—Verdiet
accordingly.

TUCK V. TUCK.
Mr. JERVIS, with whom was Mr. MANSELL, stated this
case to the Jury, It was an action brought by a nephew
against an uncle. The plaintiff was a young man, scarcely
yet 22 years of age, who was forced to bring this action to
recover the sum of 801. upon an I. 0. U., signed by the de-
fendant, who was a celebrated green-grocer in the neigh-
bourhood of Pimlico, and who also carried on the business
wishing to come to lookLon-
tioaintf'
if
out for something for him
itdoooof
diad;
oechloaaadln-
desired
ea rl cs
oafnohtri .8 s
uncleoTmh Peeplace where he might board and
When he came to towil uncle had sent him