The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

- -
COURT OF QUEEYS BENCH, Dec. 4.
JARna v. WILSON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
solicitor at Walsall, against the defendant, the Hon. Mr.
Wilson, of Uppingham, to recover 6161., claimed to be
due to the plaintiff for moneys actually disbursed by
him on account of a railway originally projected from
Wolverhampton to Norwich, but which project was sub-
sequently limited to a railway from Harborough to
Wallington. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit
payments, and that his promise had been obtained by
fraud and misrepresentation.
Mson, appeared for the plaintiffW;oarnddswthoertAh,ttaonrndeMy-rG.
ePnheripai
and MI.
Mr. . Sergeant
Jones for Shee,th M r
defendant.
Henry Tucker produced the registration of the Down-
ham Market, Swaffham, and Wallington Railway Com-
pany, dated November 5, 1845. Also a registration dated
January 5, 1846, of the change of the name of the com-
pany to the Harborough and Wallington Railway
Company.
Cross-examined--The book shows the change of
names from the commencement. It does not show that
one project was part of the other.
Mr. Robert Abrahams--I am a civil engineer. I re-
member surveying for the Harborough and Wallington
Railway in the latter part of 1845. The line was about
ten miles long, with branches. I attended on the 9th
February, 1845, a meeting at the Sussex Hotel, Bouverie-
street, of several gentlemen connected with the railway.
Ido not know if the defendant was there. I made a re-
port to a meeting of the promoters, but cannot say if it
was on the 14th of November. I afterwards completed
the survey. The plans were deposited in time for Par-
liament. I received 2001. from plaintiff for the survey,
soon after the work was commenced. I afterwards ap-
plied to plaintiff for a further sum. I obtained a bill
from him for .3001., for three months. Before it became
due I applied for further money, and commenced pro-
ceedings against plaintiff: This bill was not paid. My
claim was 932/. 13s. I afterwards received, I think,
2504 making 4501. altogether. This was about twelve
months since.

Cross-examined—The bill produced was dishonoured.
I was employed by plaintiff, and rather doubted his se-
curity. That was one reason I wanted the money. I
sued plaintiff.
Frederick William Seaman—l am a. solicitor at Wal-
sall. I was clerk to plaintiff. I attended a meeting of
the company on the 3d or 4th of November, 1845, at the
Sussex Hotel, Bouverie-street. Defendant was there.
lie took part in the proceedings. It was discussed what
part of the line should be surveyed. The defendant was
appointed vice-chairman of the managing committee at
the first meeting. Mr. Abrahams was appointed engi-
neer at a meeting when defendant was 'present. Ido not
recollect the date. Mr. Abrahams was directed to sur-
vey the Harborough and Wallington line, and prepare
plans for the purpose] of going to Parliament. The
plaintiff was present, and instructions were given to him
to prepare to go to Parliament.
Cross-examined—Plaintiff, myself, and Dunstan got
up the line. I never heard him say that be had under-
taken to bear all the expenses, and looked to the calls
only. My salary from him was 801. a year. Plaintiff
charged 51.55. a day for his attendance, 21. 2s. a day for
wine, and 41. 103. a day for assistance. We had four or
five assistants.
Re-examined-51. ss. a day was at the time a usual
charge for a solicitor,' and 21. 2s. a day for a person in
my position.- The line I assisted in getting up was the
long line ; the short line was adopted after the defendant
joined.

Mr. Dunstan—l was the secretary of this company.
I was present at the meeting in November, when Mr.
Abrahams made his report. I was present when de-
fendant was elected vice-chairman of the committee of
management. It was on November 3. I remember
letters of allotment being sent out. They never pro-
duced any effect. Circulars were sent out on January
23. One was sent to defendant. A meeting was held
on February 2. Defendant and plaintiff were present.
Plaintiff produced a statement of the liabilities of the
company. The amount was stated to be upwards of
2,0001. Plaintiff told the :committee ho had paid
i Abrahams 2001., and given a bill for 3001.; and f tho
committee would pay the liabilities of the company, he
would not charge for his own services. Defendant then
told plaintiff to 'make the best terms he could with
Abrahams. Defendant made a calculation on the sup-
position that each committeeman subscribed what the
expense to each would be. Several others did the same.
It was stated that it would be about 401. each if all
subscribed.

Cross-examined—l was a promoter of the original
line. I signed this circular with the plaintiff. I cannot
tell how many I signed. I acted as secretary pro tem.
At the meeting of November 14, the commit ee gave me
orders to rigister in the name of the liarborough and
Wallington Railway Company;
Several letters between plaintiffjand defendant Imo