The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-01 00:00:00

SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNSHIRE LINE.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday)

Mr. Fowler examined by Mr. BAINC, Q.C.—ls a civil engineer,
connected with the Stockton and Hartlepool, Great Grimsby and
Sheffield, and many others, which he either solely or conjointly with
other engineers, planned and constructed. In June last was re.
quested to survey the country between Sheffield and Gainsborough,
for the purpose of selecting a line between these points, and ac-
cordingly laid out that now before the Committee. The length of
this railway to the Grimsby Junction will be 31i miles, the entire
line between Sheffield and Lincoln, 43i miles, and from the points
of divergence to Sheffield, 27* miles. There were on the Sheffield
and Lincoln line no curves whatever less than half a mile in radius,
while there were four on the Bawtry branch less than 30 chains, in-
cluding one of less than 15 chains. The steepest gradient on the
former was I in 120, the amonnt of tunnelling 860 yards, and of
embankment abwre 40 feet in 47S feet; the steepest gradient on the
latter was I in 100, the amount of tunnelling 3,225 yards, and of
embankment 1,494 feet. The entire cost of the Sheffield and Lin-
coln would be 677,000/., that of the Bawtry branch, 694,0004
The witness was partly cross. examined by Sergeant WRANGIIAM,
but nothing of importance was elicited differing from the evidence
in chief, and at four o'clock, the Speaker having been announced
at prayers, the Committee adjourned till twelve to-merrow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, July 31.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff Bum:HELL.)
PEEL V. WEBB.

The plaintiff in this action was a printer in the New-cut,
Lambeth ; the defendant was, in April last, treasurer to the
Strand Theatre. The action was brought to recover 161. 13s.
6d., the balance of an account for printing bills, &e.
The defendant paid 8/. las. into Court, contending that was
all that was due. lie had, however, subsequently taken out a
summons for leave to pay in a further sum of 3s.
Mr. Cox stated the plaintiff's case. In April last defendant,
on behalf of Mr. Hodges, the lessee of the Strand Theatre,
wrote to the plaintiff, and asked him to send his list of prices
for printing. p; ;
—"tiff, however, having had considerable
experience in printing for minor theatres, declined to send to
ass. Webb under that letter, but after having seen Mr. Webb,
and learning that he was a respectable tradesman in Great
Distaff lane, plaintiff said that he had no objection to give him
personally credit for the printing. Work was done at different
times to the amount of 25/., of which defendant had paid 91.
on plaintiff being desirous of making payment
to aaccceorut natinThe
extent secure, offered to hire the saloon, but the
sum asked was, in his opinion, too high, 101. being required on
the ground that 91. was realised by taking care of the seats,
cloaks, &c. When the amount came to about 201. plaintiff
pressed him for his money, and it was proposed for him to take a
benefit, but which he declined. The defendant had bound him-
self in writing, as he struck out the name of Hodges to the
letter first sent, and wrote his own. lie had since denied his
liability, yet had paid 8/. 15s. into Court.
Henry Blanchard, clerk to the plaintiff, deposed to an inter-
view between plaintiff and defendant, wad the latter told
plaintiff to send to his counting-house every corning, and see
whether there were any orders for printing. Plaintiff then
asked how he was to be paid, for he had in former days lost a
great deal of money by that theatre. Defendant said plaintif
was to make out the bill, and send it to him every Friday,
and the amount should be paid on the Saturday when the
man called for orders. He proved the printing generally, and
receiving verbal and written orders from defendant.
Mr. Turner. foreman to plaintiff, confirmed the evidence as
to the promise by defendant.
Cross-examined by Mr. PEA itsosr—Mr. Hodges only called
twice, but did not see plaintiff or speak of printing. De-
fendant said, " I want you to print fur me for the Strand
Theatre." No person in particular was charged in the books,
only " Strand Theatre."
Mr. PEARSON submitted that by the Act of Parliament it
was necessary for every lessee to have his name and address
printed on the bills, and having been licensed by the Lord
Chamberlain was the ostensible proprietor, and became primarily
liable for all goods delivered, and for all contracts for or on ac-
count of the theatre. He urged that defendant was merely an as-
sistant to Mr. Hodges, and therefore that the lessee was the per-
son table; the defendant being a paid servant, acted only as the
mere agent of Mr. Hodges; but fearing that he might not be
able to make out that fact, he had paid the sum of 81. 15s. in-
to Court, being all that was due up to the 23d of May, whets
he gave a distinct notice that he would not be responsible fur
any more.
The Learned Counsel then produced a bill, made out by the
plaintiff's clerk, directed " Mr. Webb, for Mr. Hodges," and
contended that there was clear evidence that the plaintiff con-
sidered the defendant as the mere agent of Mr. Hodges.
Mr. C. C. Hodges was called, and deposed that all the
printing was done for him, and plaintiff applied to him about
a fortnight after the theatre was opened for money, on ac-
count. All the accounts for printing were sent to the theatre.
When plaintiff asked for the money, witness told, him he
should have some next week. Plaintiff agreed, when the
account amounted to about 20/. Witness, finding
the affairs of the theatre going badly, he offered the
plaintiff a benefit.. On the 24th of May, plaintiff and defendant
t that,
aaods e
pd l
an
tiff was urging for money. Defendant . sent the
benefit. were together, and defendant said it was very unbusiness-
like to hold him liable, but if Mr. Peel considered be was
liable, he would pay the amount up to that time, but would not
be liable any further—the amount was mentioned, it was some-
thing about 101.
Cross-examined—Cannot
sayo f a billth e senttlday
y after ashenproposed
np
brother, another printer. Plaintiff said, Mr. 'Vs'ebb and no
the proof to Fare-
one else had employed him, but did not say he would not print
ss
e Therex am
ie
wasd— a C a
proofn° t
for any one else for the theatre.l Wd
on the 24th of June.
e had bills after that con-
versation sent. The theatre cose
Re-examined—There was a payment made of 4/. at the
time of the conversation. The performances were after the
I interview, and the bills dated the sth of June. They were
generally printed on the Friday or Saturday for the following
Week. Paid some money, on account, on the 4th of June, after
the conversation.
Mr. E. Smith confirmed the conversation, and fixed it to
have been on the 24th of May.
Mr. Cox replied, and the rfNnea-Sneerve said it was a
mere question whether defendant had made himself personally
liable.—Verdict for the full amount.

METHAM V. MERRILL.--A RAILWAY TESTIMONIAL.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of nineteen
guineas for services on a committee for the purpose of getting
up a testimonial to the late Mr. James, the projector of the
Manchester and Birmingham Railway. The defendant is a
general agent In Clement's-lane, City.
Mr. RYLAND stated the case. The plaintiff was employed
in March last to act upon a committee for the above
purpose. The defendant took a very active part, in
fact might be looked upon as the projector of the specu.
lation. Offices were opened at No. 55, King William-street,
City, and the committee inc'uded Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Locke,
and many other eminent civil engineers, and Sir John Pixie
had gone down to Manchester to act as honorary secretary.
From some cause or other, however, the subscriptions were not
raised, and the project was abandoned, and the plaintiff was
left to seek his recompense at law, the defendant denying his
liability. lie would observe that there had been no appoint-
ment by the committee, but that the plaintiff was engaged by
defendant, who gave him the requisite directions.
Evidence was adduced to show that the plaintiff had been
employed in directing letters, &c.
Mr. LOCKE, in reply, contended that the plaintiff had never
been engaged on the personal liability of the defendant, but thet
it was a mere speculation, and if the money had been raised,
then all the parties would have been paid ; as it was, only
21. Is, had been subscribed, for several of the committee re.