The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

FINLAYSON V. PILBROW.

This was another railway case. The plaintiff is an
engineer, and he sued the defendant, who is the well-
known atmospheric railway projector, for a balance due
to him for services rendered in making rurveys for the
Gravesend and London Diriet Atmospheric Railway,
for which the defendant was the engineer.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Willis were for the plaintiff,
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Lush for the defendant.

David Finlay son, the brother of the plaintiff, deposed,
that in the beginning of October last he was in the Hall
of Commerce in London, where he saw a person named
Beaumo-t, who required the services of the plaintiff to
survey the line, and make the levels for the proposed
London and Gravesend Railway. An appointment was
afterwards made to meet at the office of the Company, in
King William-street, and they there saw the defendant,
who said that any arrangement made with Mr. Beau-
mont was just the same as if made with himself ; and
it was then agreed that the plaintiff was to have three
guineas a day, but it was stated that he would not have
any money on account because the depo&sts had not
come in. In consequence of this agreement the plaintiff
proceeded to make the necessary surveys, and was occu-
pied in so doing ur.til the 16th November.
Cross-examined—He was not aware that Mr. Pilbrow
had disposed of his atmospheric railway patent to a
company, who were to work it on their own behalf.
There might have been something of this sort, but he
was not aware of the fact, and he always considered Mr.
Pilbrow the responsible man. He took away one or two
of the prospectuses, in order that he might see whether
they contained the names of any responsible persons
from whom he might recover the money due to him one
of these odd days.—(A laugh) The company was in
debted to him 32/ or 331. ler services he had rendered.
Witness was emplOyed by Mr. Beaumont, who was the
engineer, to take. beatings upon the line.
Mr. Arthur Benjamin Burke, who described himself
as a wine-merchant, gave similar evidence as to the
character of the agreement.
Cross-examined--Before witness was a wine-mer-
chant, he used to go on messages for the plaintiff and
assist him in his business. Sometimes he gave him
half-a-sovereign, and sometimes a sovereign, according
to the manner in which he employed him.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CHAMBERS said, the defence he had to offer to
this action was that the defendant was not liable to the
plaintiff, and had never entered into any such agreement
as the one referred to. The fact was, he was the pro-
jector of a new principle of railway traction upon the
atmospheric principle, and he had disposed of his in-
vention to the comp.iny in question, and the only con
nexion he had with them was that he was occasionally
consulted with regard to the details of his invention.
The actual engineer was Mr. Beaumont, and he it was
who made the arrangement with the plaintiff, and he was
liable to him if any body was.
Mr. Beaumont was called as a witness—He deposed
that he was appointed engineer-in-chief to the Graves-
end and London Direct Railway. About the beginning
of October they were desirous of preparing to go before
Parliament. He went to the Hall of Commerce, and
saw the plaintiff walking about with a level un his
shoulder.—(A laughter.)
Mr. Chambers—l suppose that was to indicate that he
wanted a job.—(lmmense laughter.)
Witness—He supposed it was. As there was a great
demand for persons of that class, he entered into com-
munication with him, and eventually offered him three
guineas a day, but as witness, at that time, had not, him-
self, made any practical engagement with the company,
he was desirous of communicating with Mr. Pilbrow
before he comp'eted the engagement, but when he did
so, it was entirely upon his responsibility. He had
paid the plaintiff 72/. 10s., and he considered this was a
great deal more than he was entitled to. All he had
for this sum was the small plan, which he now produced,
and there was an error of fifty feet in the levels. which
if they had gone to Parliament, would have had the
certain effect of throwing out their Bill.
V iln cross-examination the witness admitted that the
defendant was frequently consulted in the course of the
proceedings, and that he was considered a responsible
party.
Sergeant Seigg was about to reply upon this evidence.