The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-18 00:00:00

fire. It had begun five feet from the ground. It had begun
on the side farthest from the first fire at Benjamin Biles's.
Cross-examined—The wind bore from the second fire to-
wards the first. The man was coming from the second fire
to the first fire.

By the JUDGE—I knew the prisoner when we came in con-
tact.

By Mr. BaaL—The prisoner was at the second fire, twisting
during a part of the time.
William Dunman was called, and corroborated the last
witness.

The Rev. Mr. Headley--I am vicar of Milborn St. Andrew.
I was at the fire at widow Bile.s's. I had occasion to speak
to the prisoner, and admonish him for his bad behaviour
there. He swore and used bad language ; he also had a pole,
knocking the fire about so as to cause danger to the other
ricks. I threatened to give him in charge of the constable
if he did not behave better. I afterwards went with the con-
stable to the prisoner's house. He found some lucifer matches
in his bed-room (producing them). I bought some matches
of Mrs. Bishop, of the same kind that she stated she had sold
toe the prisoner.
Mrs. Bishop was re-called, and stated that the matches
found were of a different kind to these she had sold to the
prisoner on the night of the fire.
The prisoner's statement before the magistrate was then
put in and read. It was to the effect that ho had bought the
matches for his wife.

Mr. 13Ai.a then addressed the jury for the prisoner at some
length, and contended that there was no evidence at all in
this case on which a jury could act to juslifx a conviction, and
that although they might have some lurking suspicion that
he was in some way connected with the transaction, yet they
were not to act upon suspicion, but must have direct proof
that he was the man whose hand fired the rick.
Mr. Justice ERLE then summed up the case to the jury,
who, after deliberating for a short time, returned a verdict of
Guilty. •
The Learned JUDGE then sentenced the prisoner to be
transported for life.
The unfortunate man was then removed from the dock
protesting his innocence of the crime laid to his charge.
Much surprise was expressed in the Court at the verdict
given in this case.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Nottinyhant, March 16.

CLAUSE V. HUGHES.'

This was an action tried in the Guildhall this morning be-
fore Mr. Under-Sheriff Swann, in which Mr. Richard Clarke,
surveyor, of Middlesex, was the plaintiff, and Mr. Hughes
Hughes, a wealthy Alderman of the city of London, and
barrister-at-law, the defendant, to recover 18/. 16s. 10d. for
work and labour done. Mr. Miller appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Macauley for the defence.
The action was simply to try whether the defendant, Mr.
Hughes Hughes, who was the chairman of the Sheffield
Nottingham, and London Direct Railway, was or was
not liable for the services of the plaintiff. In October
last Mr. Brees was the engineer, and in the month fol-
lowing a quarrel arose between him and the company, and
he was dismissed. Mr. Borsley succeeded ; but during this
period the plaintiff and others continued their work, and it
would be shown that Mr. Cann, solicitor, of Nottingham, a local
agent of the company, assured the plaintiff that he and the
other surveyors should be paid their arrears, and for their
future work. After the panic things did not go on pros-
perously, and the plaintiff found it necessary to apply to the
board of directors, of which Mr. Hughes was the chairman,
and the answer he got there was that he should be settled
with. This had not been done, hence arose the present
action. The witnesses would prove all the circumstances.
Edward M‘Dermot, surveyor, living in Middlesex, said he
was employed in November last to make a survey of the Shef-
field, Nottingham, and London Direct Railway. The plain-
tiff (Mr. Clarke), a surveyor, was also engaged on the same
line. At the first he (witness) worked under Mr. Brees'
direction. lie was an engineer. Afterwards he received in-
structions from Cann (solicitor),a local agent of the company.
Mr. MACAULEY thought that they were not in a state to
bear what Mr. Cann had said.
Mr. MILLER produced the prospectus, in which Mr. Cann's
name appeared.
Mr. MACAULEY said the account was for work and labour
done, and certainly the prospectus of the railway company
had not yet been made material to the issue.
Mr. lifaxna said he should not only prove that Mr. Cann's
name was on it, but that Mr. Hughes was at the board and
acted there.
Examination continued—The plans were completed before
the 30th November, and were deposited by witness and
others with Mr. Cann. He saw Mr. Cann take the plans
out of the office in which they had been working. After
that, said he, I was at the office of the company, in Moor-
gate-street. The plaintiff was with me on several occasions.
I went into the board-room. The committee was sitting.
Alderman Hughes was in the chair in the month of Febru-
ary. I spoke and also Mr. Clarke. He sail he wanted to
be paid for his survey. Mr. Hughes replied he was very
sorry that the committee had not paid his arrears before,
that it was a distressing situation for Mr. Clarke and the
other surveyors to be in, but the shareholders bad not paid
up their last deposits, as was expected. The committee had
come to a resolution of dissolving the company, and
they would take steps to inquire into the amount of the
liabilities of the company, and that we were to send in our
accounts ; that he (Mr. Hughes) had himself subscribed 100
guineas already, an having ascertained the amount of their
liabilities, we should be paid, and each member of the provi-
sional committee would be called upon to pay their propor-
tionate share, which he stated would be about 50/. a piece.
He then stated if we could call upon him that day week we
should have some money ; if the whole was not settled we
should have some on account. I then went away. Mr.
Clarke did not deliver his account at that time. He did not
state the amount. I called afterwards in company with Mr.
Clarke, on that day week. I did not see the alderman. I
saw the secretary, and he then referred us to Messrs. Amory
and Sewell. I did not call any more.
Mr MACAULEY said he should have no objection to Mr.
Miller calling that witness again after he had called Mr.
Cam''. It would be far more convenient if the plaintiff would
show that he was employed by Mr. Cann.
Mr. MILLER was not going to call Mr. Cann, who was the
company's agent, but lie was going to show that the com-
pany's agent had employed the plaintiff.
Examination continued—After I had been working under
the direction of Mr. Brees, Mr. Cann, in answer to a question
put by myself, in the presence of Mr. Clarke, to the effect
that we could not go on any further, and we wished to know
who we were to look to for payment, said the company was
desirous of getting the plans done, and whatever claims we
had against Mr. Brees should be paid, and also the work
done on behalf of the company.
Mr. MILLER—What are the exact words? Witness—The
words were, that we should be paid not only the arrears from
Mr. Brees, but for any work done in future. Upon that in-
timation I and Mr. Clarke proceeded with the survey, and
we acted under the direction of Mr. Borsley, a surveyor.
Mr. Cann said we were to take our instructions from Mr.
Borsley. Borsley had been acting before that under Mr.
Brees; but when Mr. Brees was dismissed we took our in-
structions from Borsley by order of Mr. Cann. These direc-
tions were for the plaintiff and myself.
Cross-examined—lt was on the 20th of November when
Borsley came. I was employed under Brees at the latter end
of October or beginning of November. I had been serving
under him on another line. My agreement was a verbal
one. He was to pay me three guineas a day. I did not say
Clarke had been employed under Brees. I have heard from
Clarke that he was to have three guineas a day. If I have
slid Clarke agreed with Borsley it was inadvertently said.
I have received money on account. I received 15/. from Mr.
Cann, and some money from Mr. Borsley. I first made ap-
plication to the office of the committee on the 3d of December.
I did not apply to Mr. Borsley. I know Mr. William Pratt.
He is not here. He is a surveyor, and worked on this line.
I have never seen his handwriting. Ido not know Clarke's
handwriting.
Mr. MACAULaY handed two letters to witness, but he said
he did not know the handwriting.
Cross-examination continued—l have brought an action
against Mr. Alderman Hughes for 30/.
Mr. MACAULEY---I suppose, when you have got this ver-
dict, you expect Mr. Clarke to help you. Are you subpoenaed?
Witness—l am.
Mr. MAcaer.ny—There is this action and Clarke's; how
many more are there ? Witness—l do not know.
Mr. Macauetv—l dare say you sue Alderman Hughes as
chairman ; why don't you sue some one in Nottingham—for
instance, Lord Ranch& ? Witness—l did not know that
Lordßa
in ncliffseueliinvg a Peer.
edinreNottingham ; besides, there is some
difficulty
Re-examined—l applied to Borslev. I applied to Mr.
Cann and to Mr. Hughes. I would fake money from any
body connected with the company.
Henry Stubbs, varnish-maker, a friend of Borsley's, came
down to assist on the line from Nottingham to Tibshelf, and
overlooked the men. Attended at the board meeting of the
27th of January last at the office in London, with Clarke and
others, and heard them ask for money for surveying on the
line. Mr. Alderman Hughes was in the chair, and he said
that it had not been in their power to remunerate them for
their services, but they were to call hi the course of the
week, and they would endeavour to settle with them; that
he was vexed at the position they were placed in, but they
would endeavour to pay.
Cross-examined— I did not go to varnish the surveys, but
as Borsley's confidant, and to see that the men kept to their
work of levelling, instead of drinking champagne in a morn-
ing to breakfast. I went to be a witness at the board-room.
I went at Mr. Borsley's request, to ascertain what was going
on in the board-room. I have no claim against the company.
George Wilson, surveyor—Was on this line, and recol-
lected Mr. Cann giving directions, about the 19th or 20th of
November. Mr. Cann stated that Mr. Brees had received
1,900/. of the company's money, and had not done them jus •
tice, and that whatever instructions Mr. Borsley gave us we
were to abide by, and that what had been left unpaid by Mr.
Brees should be paid. We were at work in a room at the
George the Fourth Inn, and Mr. Cann said if Mr. Brees
should force his way into the room we were to tumble him
out, and we were not to let him have the plans. I was pre-
sent at the board meeting. on the 27th January, end on seve-
ral other occasions, and I beard the promises of payment. I
saw Mr. Alderman Hughes there.
Cross-examined—l am sorry to say I have my action.
When Brees ceased to be engineer to the company he owed
me a balance- I was not there when Clarke first came. I

was to have 303. a day.
Re-examined—Clarke was employed when Cann gave
directions for us to receive instructions from Borsley. Clarke
was at work in the room when Mr. Cann came in and spoke
about the plans. _ _

Mr. MACAULICT addressed the jury for the defendant, as-
suring them that Mr. Hughes did not wish the plaintiff,
after earning his money, to lose it, but he considered he was
not the party who ought to be applied to, as it would appear
in evidence that the plaintiff had made an engagement with
another person, and not with the directors. He would call
Mr. Borsley, the engineer, who would show that he con-
tracted with the plaintiff, and he was to pay his account.
Mr. Borsley would give his evidence so clearly as not to
leave the shadow of a doubt. _ _

James Atkin Borslei,-Wvil engineer, said—l have been in
practice :four years. I was employed by the company to
complete the survey, and 1 became responsible from the 221
or 23d of November. There was only a short space of time
to complete the survey, as all must be finished by the 30th
of November. I contracted with the company to do the
necessary work. I employed Mr. Clark. I received no in-
structions front the company to employ him. He was in
London unemployed at the time I engaged him ; he had been
employed by me previously on the Oxford and Salisbury line.
He had been in my employ about a month. Had always paid
him before. When I had him in my employ before he was
employed on my own account. I employed the surveyors,
Clarks Pratt, and Wilson. I engaged them by the mile, not
at so much a day. They were to have 10/. a mile for the
survey. I had no authority from the company to employ
Clarke, or to fix particular sums. The line was up on the
30th of November. I paid them from time to time sums on
account. I had engaged with the company to do the work
for a fixed sum.

Mr. MILLER objected to the question which obtained the
last answer, and a note was taken by the Under-Sheriff of
the question objected to, namely—" Had you engaged to
perform these surveys for a fixed sum ?"
The UNDER-SHERIFF was of opinion the answer ought not
to be received, as it did not furnish any evidence as to the
terms made with the present plaintiff.
Mr. MACAULEY—In your employment as an engineer by
the company, was it a part of your employment to engage
persons for le company? Witness—No, I engaged them
entirely at my own responsibility.
iiA9MTLlTywrill hay Old we that you piaci uulue.