The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-31 00:00:00

k6CKLit#4HIC V. TAYLOR.

lu th►is ease Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared
for the plaintiffs: Mr. Hoggins and Mr. Cowling for the de.

The action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for an alleged breach of an agreement which the
plaintiff said was made wits► him, and also the price of his
labour in making some plans and specifications. The defen-
dant is a publican, at Rochdale, and the plaintiff is a car-
penter. The former intended to build a public-house for
himself, upon piece of ground called the Brick Croft, which
was in the possession of the plaintiff, who had upon it a saw-
pit and a quantity of timber. The defendant agreed with him,
that, if he would give up the land, he should have the build-
ing of the house. He did so, and drew out some plans and
specifications ; but, afterwards, the defendant refused to
fulfil the contract.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff : damages, £l3 10s,

FLETCHER AND ANOTHER V. MOTHERSII.L.
The plaintiffs are corn-merchants in Manchester, and the
defendant is a carrier between Manchester and Leeds. The
action was brought to recover £25. ss. 10d., the balance of
an account for oats supplied. Verdict for the amount claimed.
NORTH AND OTHERS V. STOPFORD.
This was an action to recover the amount of a promissory
note, dated 26th March, 1818. The plaintiff was nonsuited,
in consequence of the principal witness being an interested

party.
The Court adjourned at six o'clock

MONDAY
VIGNOLLES V. THE RIGHT HON. THOS. LEN ROY
This was a special jury case. Mr. Dundas, Mr. Martin
and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff ; and the case for
the defendant was conducted by Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Wort-
ley, and Mr. Cleasby.
Mr. WATSON opened the case. The declaration was for
work and labour done by the plaintiff as a civil engineer for
the defendant, and also for money paid by the plaintiff for
the defendant, upon an account stated. To this the defen.
dant pleaded first that he did not promise in the manner and
form stated, and second, that, if he did promise, he had paid
all the sums of money due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in
his replication said the defendant did not so pay ; and upon
these two counts issue was joined.
Mr: Dorm as said he had the honour to attend the court
and jury to-day as counsel for Mr. Vignolles, the plaintiff in
the action, a gentleman whose name very likely was not un-
known to some of them as a civil engineer of the highest
reputation, a man of great skill in his profession, and a per-
son of experience in all operations within his province.
When he told them that his was the skill and genius that had
planned and achieved the North Union Railway, the Mid-
land Counties Railway, and the Dublin and Kingston Railway,
he had given them only a sample of what he had been able
to perform ; and no doubt it was in respect of his known and
tried abilities that he was called upon to act as engineer in
the case they were about to inquire into. Mr. Vignolles was
a suitor in this court for a claim of between £5OOO and £6OOO
due to him for his services as a civil engineer, and for disburse-
ments and expenses he had been necessarily at in the conduct
of the service upon which he was employed. This claim
the defendant answered by saying that he had never con-
tracted with the plaintiff at all, or that if he did contract, he
had paid him the full amount of his charges. These were
the two issues the jury had to try, namely, whether there
was such a contract as the plaintiff set up, and if there was,
whether there had been payment to Mr. Vignolles for his
services. The defendant in the action was the Right Hon.
Thomas Lefroy, a gentleman whose name might also be not
unknown to several of the gentlemen whom he had the ho-
nour to address. Mr. Lefroy was a gentleman of high dis-
tinction at the Irish bar; he was member of parliament for
the University of Dublin ; he was connected with some of the
best people in Ireland •, a man of property and known respect-
ability in the county of Longford, of which at the time of these
proceedings his son had the honour to be the representative in
parliament. The defendant was sued by the plaintiff as the di-
rector of a railway company ; and he should be able to establish
to the entire satisfaction of the jury that such director the de-
fendant was in the year 1836, and that such director he con-
tinued to be daring the whole of that year,—during all the
time, indeed, over which Mr. Vignolles sought to recover a
verdict for the services performed by him for the company.
The jury would find Mr. Lefroy not only a director, but a
very active director, managing with great enterprise and skill,
as far as in him lay, the concerns of the company. He did
not mean to say that Mr. Lefroy was the only person who
could be liable by the contract. Mr. Lefroy was liable as
one person who had contracted with the plaintiff. Mr.
Vignolles sought to recover against him as the managing
director, the person of whom he had seen a great deal in the
course of these proceedings; and if, by their verdict, lie re-
covered against Mr. Lefroy, Mr. Lefroy might have his
remedy against his co-partners with him. He had stated
that the services performed by Mr. Vignolles were with re-
gard to a railway company's affairs, and now he would ex-
plain as clearly and as shortly as he could the whole circum-
stances of the railway, out of which these transactions arose.
In the year 1836 there was a good deal of speculation afloat
on the subject of railways. Both in this country and in Ire-
land many persons, some from public motives, and others
from motives of private advantage, conceived plans of rail-
ways in various parts of the empire. In Ireland there was a
very strong feeling that a railway which crossed the centre of
the island, in some way or other, would be of great im-
portance to the interests of the empire, that it would open a
most important internal communication for the resources of
the country, and afford for commercial operations very great
facilities as respected Scotland, England, and the United
States of America. Some gentlemen, both in Longford and
in the neighbouring counties about 30 or 40 miles front Dub-
lin, conceived a plan of carrying a central railway from
Dublin across the island to Sligo, a distance of 120 or 130
miles. They met together for that purpose in Dublin and
formed a provisional committee in the early part of the year
1836; good names being of course of great importance in such
works, they appointed patrons; they appointed directors,—
men of the first station and respectability in Ireland; they
appointed officers, and all the staff that such a concern as a
great railway company in Ireland would seem to require ;
and they advertised their prospectus in the public prints. It
occurred to them also that without an engineer the machine
would be very incomplete, and accordingly the directors set
about to seek for the best engineer they could find, in order
that he might be appointed to the office, with a view, as early
as possible, to make a survey of the country through which
the line was to pass, and to carry the bill of incorporation
through parliament. Mr. Lefroy, the defendant, both from
his knowledge of business, and from his station and con-
sideration in the country, as might be expected, took a very
great lead in the concerns of the provisional committee.
They had in Dublin for their solicitors Messrs. Young,
Murdock, and Lea, of Merrion-square, at whose office the
provisional committee used to meet, and he (Mr. Dundas)
should show that Mr. Lefroy was their chairman upon
all those occasions. The solicitors in Dublin had also a
partnership in London, and had their offices in New Palace-
yard, Westminster, near both the houses of parliament. The
name of the firm in London was Lea, Murdock, and Co. ;—it
was composed of the same gentlemen as the Dublin firm, but
in the latter case the name of the last partner was put first.
These gentlemen were solicitors to the company both in Dub-
lin and London. The jury would find that in London Mr.
Lefroy was repeatedly appointed, and he acted as, chairman.
He (Mr. Dundas) had told the jury how important it was,
for the interests of the concern, that an engineer should be
appointed to it. A gentleman named Walker was first pro-
posed for the appointment, but afterwards it was decided,
very much at the instance of Mr. Lefroy himself, who had
conceived very favourable notions of Mr. Vignolles, that Mr.
Vignolles's services should be secured for the company, anc
that an offer of the appointment of engineer should be made
forthwith to him. Accordingly, Mr. Lea, acting for the
company, had an interview with Mr. Vignolles in the month
of June, and communicated to him the wishes of the provi-
sional committee. Mr. Vignolles required that the offer
should be put upon paper, and a letter was given to him
dated tie 2d June, 1836. The learned counsel then read
this letter, which was ddressed to the plaintiff from New
Palace Yard by Messrs. Lea, Murdoch, and Co., on behalf
of the directors of the Great Central Irish railway. It stated
that they sent him the prospectus of the undertaking, con-
taining the directors' names, and they were desirous of ascer-
taining if he would undertake, in his capacity of engineer,
the management of the line for the directors, so as to be
ready for the next session of parliament, the line by Mul-
lingan to Sligo to be first commenced. In the prospectus,
which contained the same names as the advertisements in the
papers, the name of the plaintiff was not published to the
world, for he was not then appointed ; and he only referred
to it to prove the fact that there were eight patrons, names
of the greatest respectability, and among the list of directors
(who had the power to add to their number) stood first the
name of the Right Honourable Thomas Lefroy, of Carrie-
glass, in the county of Longford, of Anthony Lefroy, M.P.
for the county of Longford, and of Thomas Lefroy, jun.,
standing counsel to the company, and son of the present de-
fendant. Mr. Vignolles having taken proper time to enquire
into the respectability of the concern, and as to the parties
with whom he was to do business, finding they were persons
in whom he had thorough confidence, accepted their retainer.
On the 3d June he accepted the office of engineer, and
agreed to proceed with the work. On the 4th June he re-
ceived from Mr. Lefroy a letter in reply to his accepting the
appointment, in which the defendant said, " We request you
to have a survey made, so as to enable us to apply to parlia-
ment for a bill of incorporation." Therefore, there was an
appointment on the part of the directors of the plaintiff, and
an acceptance of such appointment. Mr. Vignolles set about
the business forthwith ; he was at the time engaged in seve-
ral other undertakings, and had a host of people, assistants
and others who were disposed of in different parts of Eng-
land at the time, but he sent three or four of them to Ire-
land under the direction of Mr. Nimmo, a young gentleman
of the age of 26—a clever man, but who had never acted in-
dependently for himself, but always under Mr. Vignolles,
yet a person whom Mr. Vignolles thought competent to be
entrusted with the headship or superintendance of the men
he sent over to Ireland. He gave Mr. Nimmo a small
sum of money to carry him across to Ireland, and
to commence operations. Mr. Nimmo went across
with his people, and about the 13th of June, Mr. Vig
nolles was, himself, in Dublin. A provisional committe-
meeting was held, at which the defendant was in the chair;
measures were taken for the survey to be gone on with, and
Mr. Vignolles directed his people what they were to do. Of
course it was not to be expected that Mr. Vignolles would
s iperintend them himself during the whole operations : it was
not expected by the directors that he should, for they knew
he had other avocations in England ; but he left a person
competent to superintend them, who always received in.
struction, and counsel, and direction from him, Mr. Vig.
nolles came back to this country. On the 18th June, there
was a provisional committee meeting in Palace Yard, Lon-
don, of which, on that occasion, Mr. Lefroy was the chair-
man. The project was then discussed as a very proper pro-
ceeding, and, indaml, they would find Mr. Lefroy, from the
first to last, an activa and influential member of the committee.
In the course of the same month, more assistance was sent
over to Ireland, by Mr. Vignolles. The work was a very
considerable one, and when be was not there, Mr. Vignolles
had always one or two persons upon whom he could more
immediately rely as men of science in the operations. In
July he crossed over to Ireland to examine the work which
his assistants had been carrying on, in the examination of the
country, meeting of surveyors, taking of levels, and all that
was required to be done in forming a line upon which the
railway was hereafter to lay. Sometimes there was very great
difficulty in forming a line, much more than in other cases.
In this particular case, there was a good deal of difficulty
arising from the absence of information. The ordnance map
was not out at that time ; there were no good local maps to
consult. and; with the exception of one or two canals, there
were no levels ascertained, so as to save the trouble of a
eneral survey. He (Mr. Dundas) should show that Mr.
Lefroy, although in England, always took a very warm
interest in the concern in Ireland ; and on the 18th July, he
wrote a letter to the plaintiff, who was then in Ireland,
mthoerncionmgmiap-
pointing a meeting with him in Dublin. The learned counsel
read this letter, which was dated from the House of Com-
mons, and stated that he, (the defendant,) would arrive in
Dublin on Friday
the plaintiff and twhente
hee
at should
anyh beou hr a
tpilieyyto
would meet
appoint, and requesting a note to be left for him at his house,
in Leeson-street, apprising him of the time and place of
meeting. The plaintiff was engaged at the time, but he got
to Dublin a few days afterwards, and the meeting was held at
the office of the solicitors. The grand discussion at that
wetting was where would be the proper terminus in Dublin,
so as to be most convenient Ipr this and other lines. There
was a good deal of difference in opinion, respecting which
*go;
way. the terminus
at last the opinion of the
engineer, Mr. Vigno esshould , prevailed, but others, and amongst
. them the defendant, entertained a different opinion to him.
He, (Mr. Dundas,) had another letter in his hand from the
; defendant to Mr. Vignolles, dated the 10th August, to which
he called special attention, because it left him without any
f kind of defence upon the first issue, for it shewed him acting
as a director of the company. The learned counsel then read
this letter, it was dated the 10th August, from Leeson street,