The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-14 00:00:00

eued that the reference to the Master assumed that
eimething was duo, whereas his finding negatived that
Asmrnption, and by ro doing the Master had exceeded
his power. In this case the company had adopted the
work performed by Nixon, and the very use of the rail-
way would amount to an adoption. The decree was
confined to matters under the contract; and it was final
end binding upon the Master, who could not, under a re-
ference to take an account of what extra works were
(lone, answer that there were no extra works of any sort
or description. On behalf of the company, and in support
of the Master's finding, it was admitted by Mr. Mt
and Mr. W. M. James that the Master was precluded
from considering whether these were extra works or not,
because the terms of the contract were that they were to
be extra works " under the contract No. 10." They
submitted that the Court would not allow the plaintiff
to enter into the consideration, whether independently of
the contract there had been acquiescence or adoption by
the company, which would place the plaintiff in as good
a position as though it had been decided expressly that
he works had been done under the contract. The term
" extra" works was ambiguous, inasmuch as it in-
eluded everything that was not done under the contract.
There were four kinds of works—First, those within
the contract price; secondly, extra works, ordered
in writing in the manner provided for by the con-
tract ; thirdly, works referred to in a clause of the
contract, as alterations and additions in the works at
contract price ; and, fourthly, works not within the
contract. It was argued that nothing could be
called " extra" work under the contract, unless it
was mentioned or referred to in the specification.
The Master's finding was quite in accordance with
the decree. If the plaintiff were right in his argument,
he would be entitled to be paid for his work as " extra,"
although no order whatever had been given, which was
a proposition wholly untenable. The words "extra
works," as used in the plaintiffs bill, clearly meant such
works executed " under the contract." Upon the excep-
tions it was found convenient to depart from that defi-
nition. It was doubtful, at the time the bill was filed,
whether such works, not done under a contract, could be
recovered for at law. The statement in the company's
answer of an admission that there were extra works to
the amount of 3,000/., for which they were liable to pay,
was not an admission that they were done "under the
contract;" and this was the question before the Master.
The argument of the plaintiff might be reduced to this
syllogism:—it was established before the Master that no
order had been given; this company admitted that 3,0001.
worth of work had been done " under the contract;"
therefore the company had admitted that there might be
extra works done under the contract without an order
in writing. The fallacy this reasoning, and the case
which was founded upon it, was obvious.
The further arguments occupied the Court the whole
day.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
ALCOCK V. ROYAL EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY.
This case occupied the whole of the morning. The
question at issue is how far an insurance office is respon-
sible to defray the injury to a ship when it is caused by
the intemperance or neglect of the captain, and also
whether evidence of this kind can be given at the trial.
The case is likely to occupy the greater part of the
day.