The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-25 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 23.

THE SHEFFIELD CANAL COMPANY V. THE SHEFFIELD
AND ROTHERHAM RAILWAY COMPANY.
This cause was resumed, the depositions were read,
and Mr. Bacon was heard for the defendants, after which
Mr. Pemberton replied.
The correspondence on which the plaintiffs founded
their prayer fur the investment in Government securi-
ties of a sum to secure them 1001. a year, took place in
June, 1836, when the Railway Bill, which had passed
the Commons, was in the House of Lords. The first
letter was from Mr. Vickers, the Solicitor for the rail-
way, to-Mr. Wake, the Solicitor of the Canal Company.
It was dated June 18, 1836, and stated that "in com-
pliance with the recommendation of the Committee, he,
as Solicitor of the Railway Company, undertook that
the'proprietors should enter into a covenant to pay the
Canal Company 1004 per annum, the same to be applied
eieliisively towards the repair of the Wicker." This
letter wakanawered on the Monday following, June 20,
by Wakt.,` Who submitted " that the matter must be
arranged' by investment in the way he had suggested.
The reply to this was, on Monday, June 20, 1836, when
the solicitors for the Railway Company wrote to Wake,
that they had no objection to meet his views by investing
in the funds sufficient to raise the annual paymentproposed.
It was alleged that before Wake replied to this letter he
told Vickers that the investment ought te be made before
the Bill proceeded to a third reading in the Lords, but
that he would consult Lord Wharncliffe, which he ac-
cordingly did ; and then he, on the forenoon of the 21st
of June, 1836, wrote to Vickers, " that he had had an

interview with Lord Wharncliffe, and yielding to his
Lordship's opinion, he, on behalf of the Sheffield Canal
Company, accepted the engagement on the terms of the
two documents." The plaintiffs then stated in their
bill, that the Bill having passed without any opposition
or. behalf of the Canal Company, and received the Royal
assent on the 4th of July following, they relied upon
the agreement, but did not apply to have it carried
into execution until the 24th of April, 1838, when
they wrote to the solicitors of the Railway Company,
calling upon them to perform the engagement respecting
the annuity of 100/. ; and they amain applied in June,
1838, when their solicitor received an answer, that if any
contribution was to be made, it would be matter of con-
cession and not of right ; and on further application they
received an answer that the Railroad Company did not
consider themselves at all bound to make any contribu-
tion towards. the Wicker, in consequence of which the
present bill was filed. The defendants, in their answer,
said, that as the price of peace, and to remove all fur-
ther opposition, Vickers, on his own responsibility,
wrote to Wake the letter of the 18th of June, 1836 ;
that there wea an interview with Wake that evening,
when Wake refused to accept the proposition made in
it, and insisted that the annuity of 1001. a year should
be paid to the plaintiffs for ever, and be paid to them
generally and not eec!usively fur the repairs of the
Wicker-l'oad, and that the payment should he pro-
vided for by an investment in the funds ;. Vickers
refused to accede to these terms, and Wake said he
should oppose the bringing up the report, to which
Vickers replied, " Very well, we will fight it out."
On Monday, June 20, 1836, Vickers received'from Wake
a verbal message, to which an answer was returned,
requesting communicatieas to be ade in writing, and
in consequence Vickers received from Wake the letter
of June 20, 1836, insis. upon an investment and a
declaration of trust before the bill was further proceeded
with, or he would oppeze its furtherprogress, for he
would see Lord Wharnc!iffe and the Duke of and stop the Report of the Committee on the bNilurfolk,
yolufrom
being brought up ; on which -Vickers said,
vexatiously nnreasonable. We will not delay the Blirlle
:
There is an end to all arrangement. It seems
we are to
fjght it out to the very last. Be it so. We shall bring
up the Report tce•night." The answer stated that
there
the meeting ended, and the proposal made by Vickers
to Wake was no loager open for Wake's acceptance,
and the defendants submitted it was not competent
for Wake, after that meeting, to accept the pro_
posit, and that the defendants were not bound by it
On the following day, .
the 21st of June, 1836, the Bill
was reed a third time and passed, and it afterwards
received the Royal assent. Wake then wrote the letter
of the 21st of June, 1836 (" that he accepted the en-
gagenietit on the terms of the ta.a3 documents.") Vickers
saw Wake-that evening, and informed him, that his let-
ter was too late, and that the Bill had been passed. Wake
positively refused, at the interview which took place be-
tween him and the defendant's solicitors at two o'clock
on that 20th of June, to accept their proposals, and upon
such refusal the whole treaty was at an end, and Wake
was at liberty to oppose the Bill.
The cause was argued at great length. It was urged
for the defendants that the agreement had been entirely
put an end to at the interview where Wake insisted upon
the investment of the money and the declaration of
trust, and Vickers told him "he was unreasonable ;

there was an end to all arrangement ; we are to fight it
out to the last ;" and that Wake's letter, written after-

wards, accepting the engagement on the terms of the
two documents, came too late.

For the plaintiff it was argued that the main claim, the
claim of the 1001. a year for the repairs of the road, was
not in dispute, the difference arose only as to the manner
in which that money was to be secured, and that the
plaintiffs were upon the agreement clearly entitled to the
annual payment of the 10U; and us to the second point,
that Wake had accepted the agreement proposed between
the solicitors, and had notified its acceptance in time, for
that the bill, when the report was brought up, and the
third reading in the Lords was passed, had been sent up
to the House of Commons for their concurrence to some
amendments made by the Lords, so that Wake had full
opportunity of opposing the Bill, if no agreement had
been entered into.
Lord,LSNCDALE said, this was a new point, and Mr.
Kindersley might mention the case to-morrow after the
unopposed petitions.
Mr. KINDERSLEY said, if his Lordship would look at
the pleadings, he would see there was no foundation for
the last argument.

WEDNESDAY.
P-1.1.'," ..
~..._ PANE V. HYDE.
's whs'a Petitfitt—by the plaintiffs for the transfer
. ,-;0?th-eZ.-011-Ccertain fluid which they claimed under the
'-', ill of William Spice.. who died on the 27th Jan. 1800.
','' Teitator made his will on the 4th Sept.l799, and thereby
t--, •
„._ among :other bequests he gave certain funds to trustees
in trust in case Catheiine Paine should die unmarried;
Chi
to assign 600/ Tlite.per Cent. Consols to Thomas Ed;
w:rt mid G. ./I„..g!lye respectively, on condition that
L....,--__