The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Feb. 18.

Unopposed petitions and short causes o copied his Honour,
the Vice-Chancellor of England, the whole morning.
( Bvfor Vice •Chancellor BaucE. ) •
EASTON V. CATLING.

The object of this suit was the administration, by the Court,
of a-testator's estate. By the will the children of the testator,
seven in number, were equally entitled, with direction that it
should go, after their death, to their children. It app-ared
that a fart of the stock had been sold by the trustees, for the
payment of expenses incurred in the administration of the trust,
snit in payment of the legacy duty, and that the residue had
been brought into Cour. It was stated at the bar, that dis-
putes and differences had arisen between the trustees and divers
parties interested in the fund, and that it was thought proper,
in consequence of such differences, that the trust should be ad-
ministered by the Court. There was no allegation in the bill
against the personal respectability of the trustees ; but Coun-
sel for the plaintiff stated, that the object of the suit was re-
move the necessity for further intercourse.

His HONOUR Ordered that the rustees should hare their
costs out of the fund in Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 18.

GUEST V. THE SHEFFIELD, ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, AND

MANCHESTER Rt ILWAY COMPANY.

_ This was an action brought by Sir John Guest, Bart., the
gr, at iron master and owner of the Dowlais Iron Works, Gla-
morganshire, against the Sheffield and Manchester Railway
Company, for the recovery of 541. Ids. 4d., alleged to be due
for fifty tons of 50:b. rails, and the necessary fastenings, sup-
plied b; the plaintiff to the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
ergeaut Channel for the defendants. _

Dlr. Sergeant WILDE briefly stated the case to the Jury,
and read a letter from Mr. Vignoles, late engineer to the Cod-
pany, to Sir John Guest, containing the order for the rails, &c.,
which were the subject of the present action. lie then called—
Mr. Caleb Griffiths, agent to Sir John Guest, who proved
the shipment, at Liverpool, of 501bs. of iron rails and fasten-,
ings, to the ( rder t f Mr. Vignoles, at three different dates,
from December, 1539, to the 9th of Jar.uary, 1840, and pro-
duced the invoices.

Mr. Gibson was then examined—ln June, 1840, made ap-
plication to the Sheffield Railway Company; at Man-
cheater, about certain iron raili, and went on the. works to
a place called Woodhead, where he saw the rails
(which were patent rails laid upon cross sleepers) laid
down for the purpose of removing earth from a tunnel which
was in the course of excavating at that place. Had a conver-
sation with Mr. Sidebotham, the Deputy Chairman of the
arectors, who said the Company had not pa'd for the rails,
because Mr. Vignoles had given the order fur them. Witness
said he saw they had been used, and he hoped they would not
object to pay fur them. Mr. Sidebotham replied that the con-
tractors were working the li. c, and not the Company; arid he
at length said that. a general meeting of the Directors would
shortly be held at Manchester, at which Lord Wharncliffe,
their Chairman, would preside, and recommended witness to
attend. Witness received notice of the meeting to be held at.
Manchester. Went there on the day mentioned, but it happened
that the meeting wes not held there, but at a place ik Yorkshire
about thirty miles-off; witness, in consequence, was unable to
attend. Subsequently saw Mr. Sidebutham, who said that
these rails formed part of Mr. Vignoles' claim against the Com-
pany ; it was immaterial to the Company whom they paid, but
if they paid Sir J. Guest, Mr. Vignoles might claim for them.
Witness asked if they would pay him,•if he got an engagement
front Mr. Vignoles, pledging himself not to c aim. To this
proposition witness received no definitive answer, but was told
he had better write about it to the Company. Was also told
that the contractors claimed for these rails.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL,
but nothing new was elicited.
• Mr. John „Smith, the contractor, was next called—Lie had
laid down the rails now in dispute. They answered the pur-
pose very well. Mr. Sidebotham, Mr. Rhodes, and other of
the Directors, frequeney went over witness's part of the work,
and saw what was going on. Mr. Vignoles was engineer to the
Company all the time that witness was contractor there. Never
made any claim on the Company for these rails. The rails
were laid down, some on stone, some on cross sleepers, and
501112 on longitudinal sleepers.
Cross-examined by Sergeant CHANNEL—Never saw rails
laid on longitudinal sleepers before on any line. Laying these
rails in so many different ways looked as if they wi re experi-
menting with them. Mr. Vignoles once purchased iron from
witness's partner on behall of the firm.
By a Juryman—The rails were not mere contractor's rails.
They were tit for the permanent way. Contractor's rails weigh
about 271bs. a yard, these rails were about 501bs. a yard.
Mr. Davis, clei k to the house of Guest and Co., in London,
proved the sending of the invoices of the fastenings to Mr.
Vignoles.
This was the whole of the evidence for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL then addressed the Jury. 1-le
stated that Mr. Vignoles -had been engineer to the Company,
lint that he had resigned his office in-December, 1839. The
rails were ordered previous to Mr. Vignoles's resignation, and
the fastenings had not been ordered till after. he sum due
for the fastenings being about 20/. was paid into Court. The
Learned Counsel then called

Mr. Charles Vignoles—Am an engineer. Was engineer to
the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway
Company from 1836 to 1839. Know Smith the contractor.
Addreised a certain letter to Sir J. Guest fo: some rails ; had
not the authority of the Directors, for so doing, but did it in
anticipation of receiving their authority. In the autumn of
1839 did obtain that authority in the shape of an order to lay
half a mile of the permanent way westward from the tunnel.
It was well understood that the rails now in dispute were those
which were to be laid down. in November, 1839 I considered
these rails to be the property of the Company; the Company
considered them to be the property of the contractor.
This was the whole of the evidence. Air. Sergeant Wilde
did Lot reply.
Chief Justice TINDAL directed the Jury to return a verdict
plaintiff, observing to the Counsel for the defence—
Afterthis evidence you are quite safe, as Smith has on his
for the
oath disclaimed the rails being his property.
he Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
sought for. •

SECONDARIES' COURT, Feb. 18.