The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 21. L:T.O
LORD DUNGLAS V. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
The arguments not having concluded at half-past threi,
o'clock, were postponed till to-morrow (this day).
VISCOUNT MAITLAND V. HORNE.
Lord CorrENHAst gave judgment in this case, which wt;
argued before the House when his Lordship was Chancellor.,*
Their Lordships, under the advice of the Noble Lord, ordersdl
the judgment in thr Court below to be reversed, with costs.-
VIGERS V. PIKE.
This appeal also stood on the paper for judgment, but 11,80'
Lordships deferred giving their decision till to-morrow 0.04
day

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 21.
(Nisi Prins sittings at Gutidhatl, Before Lord ABINGEn and
a Special Jury.) 1.
SHARPE V. THE BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY CD:C., .a..
Mr. Richards and Mr. Martin appeared for the plai Tall
.1 ' ' --
the Solicitor-General, with Mr. Wortley and Mr. ot:".
were Counsel for the defendants.
This was an action brought far the recovery of abebaliannicstio

the price of five locomotive' engines, stipulated to . sS
at 1,765/. each, by Alessrs. Sharpe and Roberts, the celeb „;e
engine manufacturers of Manchester, for the defendants'
- the'
sum fur which the action was brought was a°d stirs
defence set up was that in the construction of the ents.7
esti
the plaintiffs had departed from the agreement or spec,a je„oa
entered into between them and the defendants, by aer
fastenings or rivets in making the fire boxes instead of cFP'a„..
fastenings, which they were bound by contract to use; I(,rerat
peared that the plaintiffs had built ten engines for rise
Western Railway Company, who subsequently became ,ceinlei
netted with the defendants, arid that they• stipulated W
the five engines in question, precisely on the same Prilway
and, in every respect the same, as the Great Western Rely
engines, engines, the fire boxes of those engines were mode
5... as:
copper rivets, but the plaintiffs substituted iron, beta,
they alleged it was more durable, of more absolute str etlev.
sod more capable than copper to withstand the P°o7o
using
of expansion. This variation front the original {livery
was not discovered until some time after the .for the
of the engines, and then the defendants objected to nay lo„per
engines on the ground that the substitution of iron fur copper
was never acquiesced in by them, and that they coO6l.Aense
copper fastenings better and safer. It now appeared in ttas-
that the substitution of iron for copper rivets was a subs
tial and practical improvement, and that that, amongst, n
?sr
deviations from the of iginal specification, had been mad, l'
wore
advantage of the defendants, and to render the engine', 4,tiffs
durable. In many instances the alterations cost thee:oM
more than the construction of the engines, according %tiffs
original agreement, would have amounted to. The
had turned out 200 engines within the last three Year',,' sch
none of them had copper rivets. They were all very w
approved of.
r. Gregorie, an engineer employed on the Croydte° iron
deposed that iron rivets were much better than copper• er;
might be more safely heated to a greater degree than CO_
?
P
besides, it was more powerful, and capable of drawigok
flanges, which form the copper joints of the fire-boxes, nto a
closer than iron. In saying that iron could be heate it
greater degree than copper more safely, he meant, log
could be heated to a greater degree without deteriolos
the quality of the metal ; the tenacity and streo,
of iron were greater than copper, and in Contra' ot
it exercised greater force. Iron contracted mere rapid!'" or
copper could, it was better for rivets because it had the Petrar
of drawing the joints together more tightly. There was n° 011
of cot rosion. It was observed that the heads of copper boltsboip
in fire-boxes were worn away whilst the heads of iror4ete
used for similar purposes were comparatively sound. &s.
were several engines supplied to the Croydon Railway 11 of
zany by Messrs. Sharpe ana Roberts (the plaintiffs).
them were made with iron rivets—they had now been Orr to
en that hue for tour years, and there was no reason what
complain of them ; the iron fastenings were found to be "'
better than copper. na"
Mr. Thomas Stethen, engineer of the Brighton and Pbers
Railway Company, and Mr. Fife, engineer of the Nert that
and Eastern Counties Railway Company, likewise deposed
iron rivets were preferable to coper. r the
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the opinions °f the
witnesses being received as evidence, and address tse •
J ray for the defendants. The simple question was'whethetrors
plaintiffs had complied with the contract entered into ,
them and the defendants or not, and if not, whether ths.'eisg
:endants. had waived the non-compliance 'by retl'e,of
end using the engines ih question prior to the disco' lid
the defects in them ; that the plaintiffs should be strict ,at I
down to the terms of the stipulation they had entered inte'ttle
to the degree of latitude to be allowed in deviating creiteeort;
particular contract, he denied that .the plaintiff ben es'
trom the defendants to deviate from the terms of the stee
tion without the consent of Mr. Brunel. or Mr. Gout X40
C
engineers of the ompany. A preposition, it is iree , e
made to Mr. Brunel, to alter the contract by
i rnakinsgst
of the stays or bolts from copper instead of ron, h
Brunel, on behalf of the defendants absolutely. refused Ise ~
quiesce in such an alteration, because it was found o'ooo
copper bolts had worked well in the engines of thes;i44
F
Western Railway, and therefore no consent had been '
alter or deviate from the specification in that respecctits pi 0
contended that the plaintiffs could riot maintain theirs t°,,
they had deviated from the terms of their written contrsci;real
Mr. Daniel Gouche, one of the engineers of the pipet
Western Railway, proved that the fire-boxes of the 112 e '7os
on that line, with the exception of those supplied by
Sharpe and Roberts, were made with Robertar
seen 411 the engines supplied by Sharpe and nwegiaol
to time, and did not discover that the rivets were at_tr°!l'olo
long after they were delivered to the defendants.
of the ten engines delivered to the Great Western
were defective. .
LT ohred
‘Avßi
tlnNeGs e
stateddt
hwahte
tnhtehye
eerneg engine
tshe hadbebs et eonf v
his reerceeloi,li
lection delivered in 1840 ; they had all done considerable 'cost
The five engines delivered to the defendants had Pot
much work, the boiler of one of them (the Panther) '
and burst ; it failed near the door. that
Lord ABINGEII—CouId you form a judgment whether,jjog
.failure in, the Panther engine was owing to iron rivets yr
Ised? I
Witness—l don't know. We have had no proof of thsi'Dst
have had conversations with Messrs. Sharpe and R°be.,lllle
I. never on any occasion consented to the substitution sts
rivets for copper rivets. It was never mentioned to We' :!
still in the employment of the defendants.
Mr.. Brunel, the other engineer, deposed that beestalefii !es
. authorised the plaintiffs to use iron instead of copperas the ,(.1e
Mr. RICHARDS contended for the plaintiffs IT toe to of
fendants had acquiesced in the deviation that had ;aste'' tbe
from the terms of the agreement, in using iron ciiot to
copper rivets, and in any event the departure, acenr, itaaot' it f
evidence, must have the effect of serving the dee silf"e,st
rendering the engines more efficient and durable' tie of c"
could be of no advantage to the plaintiffs, thndifferenteaiq
lob ,s.;l
being only a few shillings in each engine for copper f'sl.d
Lord MUNGER, in summing up said, that with reg3s
being the balance of one of the engines delivered to t:,,erdiet.e
ant and not objected to, they were bound to find be,f,
the plaintiff. The question then was, Whether Is/fia end2PD,
the price of another of the engines delivered to the. w'been ° #
10
should not be added to that sum ; that engine ." 01°,4
jected to because it was not executed in the way slt!tia tbs'ae
contract entered into between the parties ; it was to al
a man ordered work, and if it was not done accoronetedi
contract, and as it had been ordered, it could be Or, rove 0;
the same principle, if the engines in question were 0n",..004„
they were ordered, they could be rejected by' the dc"tbe
but then they Jury would have to determine whetherobjeecoce
tract had been substantially performed—whether the, fa e'eli '
taken long after the delivery of the engines,. arose aft toy
collateral cause ; the contract was not to be inferW,rdiit
from the speciflcation—ther e were many engines del, ,0051,i,
the plaintiffs to the defendants, and the jut y should L'iriefi,,
whether there were not abundant opportunities for thefros
ants to consider the deviation that had been made isetirt
contract; it might have been easily ascertained but "I sOlers
had been instituted, and no objection made. Severtbses„sl
made with iron rivets had been received and had nthey ai
jected to by the defendants. That seemed as ref
approved of them, and if they were, in trt teri'ts
of fact., aware of the deviation in that respect, from th fetalo De
the agreement, that acquier,ence on the part of the led "cell
gave rise to a new coreract, by which they should oft rat
bound, if tie jury thought that the alteration-• beutdatPtits
made with a fraudulent intention, but with a view „t the,
substantial improvement in' the mach nery, and thL,to p
fendants having had sufficient time and opportue,"lol
cover that the alteration was made, acquiesed in itiaeir'Do!
mitted it to be made, particularly when it was Of ,ofsy
advantage, a verdict should be returned for the pia'nopt
if the jury were of opinion that the deviation was nea.
i.tae.'
in by the delendants, and that it was detrimental
terests, they should find a verdict for the defendants. thei'y
The Jury immediately handed in their verdict for
tiff, for 2,3751. damages and interest.

THE MARKETS. iIP
PRE.:E EnD. I
Ihe h)ghcst eof :••(.: 1. he M ticplisisVi
Loaf. G.. .d Bread may be had a, 74d.
PREE.i 01 SEEDS.

trte% 5•,4e.!1( stl
1

. ; i
Per Cwt. _ _ per Qua,- .....:`;00.,,i
Sew English Heft C10ver...65i 83s St. Fein ..........•.--• ......... 2 6,4
Old Litt,. Dino -s s-s Rye Grass.... ........ ,ii••,....,36 1,0
New Foreign Mao.- -s 755 92s Pacey Grass ............. 20 'E'iis ',;:o
01d Ditto Di.to -s -s -s Linseed, for fe..ilia '•"3 JO •'shew White Clover 54s (Ts 65s Ditto, for sowing ..... ' -'''' et,
Old Ditto Ditto -a .., s -s. Ditto, for erushi.,S etas
cw Tre. oil ....
Old Ditto -s 'LW I,Bs Canary................. 1,
1013:4
'fr. folium --a -s -s Per ......... o`l 11 ili tis
~, to /,
English Carraway -s .506 5.s White Mustard•fil to ~
Foreign Ditto s 46s 130 s Brown Ditt0....., '5O Ci' ,6 ",
Coriansier ... -s -s -sTares ..... - ..................... '1 a"
I'RIt.E OF TALLOW, SOAP, &c. prr ` ..... I 16 ~"
Town Tallow ....... ........ £2 10 0 Melting Stuff.- ..... ..". 0 '
Yellow Russia
White ... ii 0 C Graves ................ •:•,....' g,
Soap Ditto 0 0 0 Good Dregs .....»•••., 4, ..0. g
PRICE OF RAW FAT, per stone of 51' ~••
Price of Tallow (as stated by the Tallow Meltors) ....... 0
49 I
PaICE OF OIL. L.., .0
Rape Oil. brown, per ton ...." ps 0
Ditto, refined .................... `' 55410
.................. .......
~
...... its 0
Linseed Oil. ....... .. ......... . .................... ...... .. I. 1
Linseed Oil Cake at the Mill (per 1000) ........ . ....
d•
Rape t ake, per ton ............... .---. ... ....... ....''`
N 6
COAL MARKET. • „.4 0 6
Ships arrived since list maricet.daYs "'-' it .ie 0 6
~ d.
oleo
~.. al
6
Adair's
Bell, Robson k Co. Hartley 16 fliWalls End Ha on ....:„... 'il 6
Buddle's West Hartley lB 0 Walls End Kenton •'" . ...• 0 6
Can's Hartley
Hebburn Main lB 9 Walls End Stew rioc ..... .. ... " 0 0
crew Tanfield Moor IS 31Walls End Ac essr.
... . .........
„..,0 0
Ord's Redheugh ' l6 oWalls Enil C 3 nigur'.•••;,..,.. it 0
'1 anfleld Moor ' 0 0 Walli End SO 004,01'•...,' pi
Wylam ' l7 61'w:want's Hl,OlO '" ... •• 0 6
Walls End Heaton l9 6; Walls End ik.,";vburn ... .... 1: 0
Walls Eud Hedlcy l9 6 Walls Et.d .'°' ....... itel IS
..... t fro. . '
Walls End Hilda. lB 9 Hartley ..... iies
Walls
Walls
EnEndd
KHiontisnpAvr
0.
1188
86
BRhaivpecnnts:r.r..t....,
....... .... i•
Walls End S. Killingworth 15 9,
_ -
IMPERIAL PARLIA Isll4l

must do co-to.-mmv,,
SOUSE OF vs,
cf;-01).,/
H,CORN-LAWS—ADJOURNED .PPI)-`-0 st ;
air.
LIARDY (in • • ceetleA I 0°
They Continuation) pro 1110' tier
. one or the other .° work "IIeCV
only proiect•th
him and the manufacturer, but all wh ..._, „windert
g .. are connected with him in trade. li? all e,
!nni the . agriculturist, they likewi,e peterv.,a iii,,
T.,.;they protect saddlers, blachsmiths nn t the l'',,
who are connected with him,- and they pr"ititrt pot ...;
also. Hon. Gentlemen, therefore, ni.: Lot o:re,
that
en
fprotection did not extend to the taboo !*:.'160)014
mn ined only to the landed proprietor. 1 I°',.e of lio,
_n en opposite could never have looked at the 11.1:1,'e 00,et:,
jthis country, and the return' it makes wt`,P0..804,
~ where was the estate that paid mere tilnin.4„ti ollißo,
halt or three per cent. for the money Iftit` r- .---(1'17-01
That was not the case with inaltuffiettl yso•_. 0,00 ,i
hear.) But when they thouht that 6a,ooci. 'a.,,lifoi
an ,h
la.,' •
la out in laud ' lei" "sure vv.°-
tiltnik
v. 0,1 only nO,O tilo
or three
per cent,. .he. . Car. J-
.1,
.tich to
0,.
,t WI'S a stroug proof that iltele 1%115 DO !.,.1.,,
joi„ 1,,,
proteetion in favour of land. 't Ito i...ott. .1-;7o's; '
posite hid. menf • 1 opinion of Mr. 1-1""--.
, ~ io.-ict. an :-.iN
.