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

SATURDAY

LYON V. HAYES.
This was a special jury case. The jury having been sworn,
Mr. Cresswell, on the part of the plaintiff, said he was happy
lo inform them, that this case would not give them nay
trouble. It was a question arising out of the affairs of the
Northern and Central Bank of England, which had pro-
duced some very complicated pleadings upon the record,
which, if investigated, would give a very great deal of trouble,
and end, at last, in a point of law. An arrangement had,
therefore, been made, by which it was agreed, that a special
verdict should now be entered for the plaintiff, and an in-
vestigation into the facts made by a gentleman at the bar.
The duty of the jury, under these circumstances, would be
to find a special verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the award.
Mr. DUNDAS, on the part of the defendant, said this was
the better course.
Mr. CnEsswEtL said it had been agreed to refer the case
to his friend Mr. Robinson, and it was proposed that he
should have the same power to make amendments in the
record as the learned Judge.
The JuoGE.—Certainly.
Reference to Mr. Robinson, as an arbitrator, to take the
evidence and state a special verdict.

COBB V. STEWART

This was also a special jury case. The declaration stated,
that, by a certain memorandum in writing. addressed to the
plaintiff, signed by the defendant, and sent to the plaintiff,
the plaintiff made an engagement to deliver to the defendant,
on or before the 10th of October, twenty-five shares in the
London and Birmingham Railway, at £99 premium per
share, and that, if the defendant failed to pay for them at the
time agreed upon, the plaintiff should be at liberty to resell
them, and charge the defendant with the difference between
the prices on the day of delivery and the day of sale.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton conducted the plain-
tiff's case; Mr. Martin that of the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL said this was an action in which the
plaintiff, Mr. Timothy R. Cobb, sought to recover from the
defendant the sum of about £9OO, the difference in the value
of twentv-five shares in the London and Birmingham Rail-
way, on the 10th and 19th of October last year. ,On the 17th
of June, 1840, a contract was made between the plaintiff and
the defendant, Mr. Stewart, in the presence of Mr. De Ccsta,
to deliver and receive the shares named in the declaration on
or before the 10th of October. The learned counsel here
read the contract. The defendant was not ready to pay
them on the lath, and he so informed the plaintiff, asking
him to hold them over till the 14th. This was agreed to,
and the defendant not paying for them on that day, they were
sold on the 19th. The action was to recover £902, the
difference in the value of the shares on the 10th and the 19th.
Mr. MARTEN, for the defendant, said, his client never
attempted to dispute Mr. Cobb's right to recover the dif-
ference upon these shares ; but he said the plaintiff was not
entitled to that which he demanded, but only to that which
the plaintiff was ready to pay. The only question for the
jury to try Was, what was the amount of the difference which
the defendant ought to pay to the plaintiff; but he (the
learned counsel) submitted that he ought to pay only the-
difference between the price on the 10th and the price upon
the 14th. Before that time his client found himself unable
to pay for them, and he immediately communicated the fact
to them, also proposing some terms, which were declined.
The defendant requested that the matter might'stand over to
the 14th, which was acceded to : this being a departure from
the original contract, he contended, that the plaintiff was
entitled only to recover the difference in the price on the
14th..
The JUDGE' in summing up, told the jury that the only
question for them to consider was, whether the loss should
be calculated as if the shares had been sold upon the 14th,
or. as from the actual sale on the 19th.
The Jury, after a few minutes conversation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, and that the loss should be fixed
from the sale upon the 19th : damages, £B5B, the difference
between the verdict and the sum claimed being caused by
money received in dividends.
lIORNBY, CLERK, V. DEAKDEN.
This case, after the opening of Mr. Wortley, was referred.
The question was as to the minerals under some land belong-
ing to the plaintiff, at Heywood, near Rochdale. Mr. Cress-
well appeared for the defendant.

OCCLESTON AND OTHERS V. ROONE

This was an action to recover the value of 13,000 horn:
from the defendants, William and Joseph Boone, dealers it
iron and steel, at Sheffield, by the plaintiff, a tanner, at Hoo
green, Cheshire.
Mr. Cresswell, with whom was Mr. Atherton, appearec
for the plaintiffs : Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin for the de
fendants.

It appeared, that, in 1839, the plaintiffs sent to a person
named Winks, who was carrying on business, in Sheffield,
as a commission-agent, 13,000 horns. Winks kept these
horns till the year
for sale.
intending to go abroad, he
advertised his stock Mr. Mitchell was employed
to value it. The defendants. bought the stock, including the
by threteiie)nills of exchange, two of
horns, and paid for it
which had been taken up by and the third was still
running. Some time afterwards Winks became bankrupt,
and now the plaintiffs sought to recovertheNmlue of the horns,
alleging, that Winks being only a factor, had no right to sell
the goods, and that there was no bona
fide Cl'irleeCted the jury
,
After hearing the evidence, the
JUDGE
that the only question for their consideration was, whether
they were satisfied that the horns were sold by Winks to
Roone with the rest of the stock, and whether the payment
p
for the horns and the rest of the stock was includedy
ithree bills, the amount of which was £6OO. Therewastnhoe
question as to whether the d fendants got the horns : the
jury would have to consider whether they had paid for them
or not.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
TAYLOR V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER.
This was an action in replevin to recover the value of cer-
tain cows detained by the defendants, in consequence of their
trespassing upon their fields.
Ma. Watson and Mr. Hill conducted the plaintiff's case
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Wilkins that of the defendants.
The defendants justified the taking of the cows, on the
in their grounds. The
ground that the cattle were trespassing
plaintiff answered, that, after and before the taking of the
cattle, he tendered the sum of £1 in compensation for the
damage done by the trespass, which sum was sufficient. In
their replication, the defendants said the sum tendered was
not sufficient.
A discussion arose as to the right to commence. After
some argument, the learned JUDGE decided, that, as the
defendants undertook to prove that enough had not been
tendered, they ought to commence.
Mr. KNOWLES then opened the case. The plaintiff, Tho-
mas Taylor, kept the farm called Hill's Mount, Butterworth,
near Rochdale, in this county, and the defendants kept an
adjoining farm. The plaintiff was in the habit of overstock-
ing his farm with cattle and keeping his fences in bad condi-
tion, in consequence of which his cattle frequently trespassed
upon the defendants fields. On the 26th September last six
of the defendants' cows being in one of his fields, the plain-
tiffs cattle got among them, a fight ensued between them,
and, it being a wet day, considerable damage was done. in
consequence of this the cattle were impounded by the de-
fendants, as the plaintiff refused to pay more than £1 for the
damage done inasmuch as it amounted to between £2 and
£2 10s. The present action was brought to recover the value
of the cattle. Evidence was produced to show the amount
of the damage done.
Mr. Causswuti, then addressed the jury on the part of
the defendant, contending, that sufficient had been tendered.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

lIROCKLEBATIK V. TAYLOR.

In this ease Mr. Cresawell and Mr. Crompton appeared
for the plaintiffs: Mr. Hoggins and Mr. Cowling for the de-
fendant.

The action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for an alleged breach of an agreement which the
plaintiff said was made with 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 lOs

FLETCHER AND ANOTHER V. MOTHERSILL

The plaintiffs are corn-merchants in Manchester, and the
defendant is a carrier between Manchester and Leeds. The
action was brought to recover 1:25. ss. 104., 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. LEFROY.
This was a special jury case. Mr. Dundas, Mr. Mai tin,
and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff; and the case for
the defendant was conducted by Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Wort-
ley, and Mr. Cleasby. _ _

WATSONMr. 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. DUNDAS 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 perfo►;m ; 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 clai,n 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 empiciyed. 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 pe.ople 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, tindthat such director he con-

tinned to be ditrirc, 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, he 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 puts 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 Atterica. Some gentlemen, both in Longford and
in the neighbouring counties about 30 or 40 miles from 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, and
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 tl.e 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 Carne-
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 ds 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. Viguolles thought competent to be
entrusted with the headship or superiutendance 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, Mss', they would find Mr. Lefroy, from the
first to last, an activs 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 he 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
general 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, ap-
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 morning, when he should be happy to meet
the plaintiff and the committee at any hour they would
appoint, and requesting a note to be left for him at his house,
in Leeson-street, app
meeting. The plaintiff
rising him of the time and place of
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 for this and other lines. There
was a good deal of difference in opinion, respecting which
way the terminus should go ; at last the opinion of the
engineer, Mr. Vignolles, 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
kind of defence upon the first issue, for it shewed him acting
as a director of the company. The learned counsel then read
, from Leeson street, this letter, it was dated the 10th August

Dublin ; and addressed to the plaintiff. In this letter,
the defendant said that from what he had learned since his
arrival in Dublin he was persuaded a terminus at Kilmain-
ham would not go down with the people there, and therefore
he relied upon the skill and industry of the plaintiff to find
a better. At all events, he said, he hoped he would be able
to find a terminus somewhere more convenient for the Cus-
tom-house than Kilmainham and other places which were
suggested. After this (the learned counsel contended) it
was impossible for Mr. Lefroy to say he was not a director
of the company, and dealing with Mr. Vignolles as the en-
gineer to the company. The survey then went on ; and he
would now call attention to the work which the parties en-
gaged in the survey had to perform. The learned counsel
then produced a map of the country,' on which he pointed
out the three points of the proposed railway—Dublin, Sligo,
and Galway. The jury knew very well that in exploring a
new country there was much labour in vain ; that it cost
just as much labour and pains to investigate the lines you
desert as the lines you adopt. In the present case an exa-
mination of the country was made the whole length to Sligo,
as well as the whole length to Galway. On the map the
jury would observe three black lines commencing at Dublin,
one going to Athlone, another to Kells, and a third ran up
to Longford ; these were the lines which were eventually re-
ported upon as the right ones, and it was for making these
lines that Mr. Vignolles sought compensation from the de-
fendant. In the making of these lines it was quite capable
of proof that all the lines which were described upon the
map, not continuously but dotted, were also lines which
Mr. Vignolles surveyed at one time or other with the view
of making the three black lines; they were surveyed and le-
velled with the greatest care, in order to come to the con-
clusion as to the best of the three lines which were eventually

adopted. There was a great dispute, as he had said, about
the terminus, some wishing it to go to the north, and others
in a different direction, but at last the opinion of Mr. Vig-
nolles was received by the committee ; his report was agreed
to, and his line was adopted by the committee of manage-
ment. Before his report was sent in, there was a meeting
of the provisional committee in Dublin ; this was in August;
the defendant was in the chair, and conducted the business
of that meeting. New instructions were sent out, more

❑try was surveyed, and about that time, with a view to
business of_ this railway company, an office was taken

Mt. Vignolles in Dublin, which_ continued to. be the

office of the company till the end of the year, Mr. Vignolles
and his assistants transacting their business there. On the
19th September there was another meeting in Dublin, at
which Mr. Vignolles' report was handed in and read. That
report was adopted, and then nothing remained to be done
after the lines had been agreed to, but such necessary pre-
parations for the clerk of the peace's office and the houses
of parliament as were required by law. On the 21st Sept.
another meeting of the provisional committee was held, to
the proceedings of which he begged to call attention, be-
cause it had been suggested that from something which arose
at that meeting, something like a defence to this action would
arise ; but he would submit that nothing happened at that
meeting which was not entirely consistent with M. Vig-
nolles' case. He had already mentioned that Mr. Vig-
nolles had several employments of his own, which he

was carrying on in Etigla-nd. At that time there was
a notion in Ireland of what did eventually take place,

viz., that a royal commission would go to Ireland for the
purpose of regulating railways in that country. Mr. Vig-
..

.aolfes was very anxious to beeoute the engineer to the royal

commissioners, but it was conceived by him mid by some
members of the provisional committee, among whom was, as
he should show, Mr. Lefroy himself, that it would be very
much to the advantage of the railway company if he was no
lodger to appear to the world as engineer to the Central Irish

Railway Coinpany, but that he should be permitted, giving
the y mug gentleman, Ninuno, his assistance, to become en-

gineer to the royal commissioners. Mr. Lefroy considered
it might be of great advantage to their railway to have a per-
son at head quarters of such importance as Mr. Vignolles ;
but it was expressly agreed at the same meeting that though
Mr. Nimmo was to be ostensible engineer, his proceedings
were still to be taken under the advice and assistance of Mr.

Vignolles. Mr. Nimmo never having had any independent
occupation in his life before, and too young to be entrusted
with so vast a concern upon his own footing, was to look
to Mr. Vignolles for advice, and receive it from him as be-
fore. There could pot be a doubt—not only that such was
the understanding of the parties, but that such was their con-
duct. In point of fact Mr. Vignolles was no longer engineer
to the company lay name, but he was still to give the com-
pany the benefit of his assistance in carrying on the work.

He should shew the jury that in October:Mi.. Vignolles was
consulted upon the work just as he was before ; his office in
Dublin was open to Mr. Nimmo and the other parties just as
it was before; in truth, except in the mere name there was no
real difference in the relation of Mr. Vignolles to this rail-
way after the 21st of September than there was before. The
report having been received, read, and adopted, the real work
of the engineer was completed. All that had to be done
afterwards was to go over the lines again, to ascertain
them accurately, to prepare plans and sections, and books of
reference for , the houses of parliament and clerks of the
peace. They would find that Mr. Vignolles went to Ireland
after this, that he did business with Mr. Nimmo, who applied
to him for counsel and advice, and he should be able to show
by a very extensive correspondence which subsisted between
Nimmoand Vignolles, that Nimmo did from the first to the
last communicate upon the subject of this railway with Vig-
nolles. It was a great misfortune for his client (Mr. Vig-
nolles) that Mr. Nimmo died in the early part of the
year 1839. If Mr. Nimmo had been now alive, the
jury would have had an opportunity of knowing from him
whether there was anything in the suggestion that he
(Nimmo) was acting substantially for himself, and not as an
inferior officer for Mr. Vignolles. The line being thus re-
ported on, the work was completed about the end of the
year; no fault was found with it, anti the only remaining
question was, whether the work should be paid for. The
question was, whether or not the plaintiff could establish to
the satisfaction of the jury that Mr. Lefroy was one of the
directors who were bound to make good the claims made
upon him by the engineer. It became necessary after the
work was completed to make the lodgments with the clerk of
the peace, and with the houses of parliament. All that was
duly done. The maps, sections, and books of reference gtve
a great deal of trouble to the engineer; they were all duly
lodged, and every thing was done proper for the car-
rying through of a bill in. parliament. There was a
charge by Mr. Vignolles of some money for copies of the
books and sections for the royal commission ; that he (Mr.

Dundas) was in a condition to prove was done at the express
desire of the committee, with a view to make the royal corn-
missiouers acquainted with this railway, in order that the
line might have a good chance of being adopted by them.
There was afterwards also, with a view to introduce a fresh
bill into the Commons, another lodgment with the houses of
parliament, of plans, with a view to the session of 1837-8,
which was done at the expense of Mr. Vignolles. He had
now, he believed, stated, very much in outline, but he hoped
simply and clearly enough, the general features of this case.
It would be necessary for him to show, by evidence, the de-
tails of the business he performed ; to prove that this was
well performed and reasonably charged for. The question,
after all, would turn upon this, whether or no these works
were in fact done by Mr. Vignolles, and whether the price he
put upon them was sufficient. With regard to that he should
call before the jury an engineer or two of acknowledged
talent, who would tell them that the charge of £4O per mile
upon 1261 miles (for such was the length of the three lines
marked black in the map) was a reasonable charge to be made
for such business. Altogether the amount came to about £5060,
and they would find by the evidence that this was a reasonable
charge. The distance was 1261 miles, which was a longer line
than any we had in England. The distance from London to
Birmingham was 112 or 114 miles, and he was not aware of
any longer line ; and this was a line of 1261 miles, which
was all that had been reported upon. He had called the at-
tention of the jury a little while ago to the fact that not only
when you made 1261 miles were you entitled to charge, but you
were also for the work and labour done upon the other lines.
He understood that 380 miles were actually surveyed; but
it was for only 1262 miles that his client sought to charge.
There was a plea of payment upon the record, but he was at
a loss to understand what Mr. Lefroy meant by a plea of
payment. The only money ever actually paid to Mr. Vig-
nolles was the sum of £5OO, which was put to his credit
when first he went to Dublin in June, 1836, to commence
operations. No other money was paid to him, certainly not
before the month of September, when the transactions with
regard to Mr. Nimmo took place. If Mr. Nimmo had re-
ceived any money, as the agent of Mr. Vignolles, as well
for that as for the £5OO, would Mr. Vignolles give the de-
fendant credit, for he did not want sixpence more than ex-
penses out of pocket, and what he was entitled to as any
other man of science, to have payment made to him of his
just debt; therefore when he saw what case was made out
upon the other side, he would tell the jury how much Mr.
Vignolles allowed on account of payment, besides the £5OO
wherewith he first went to Dublin. He begged the jury to
keep their attention upon these two points—whether, in the
first place, a case was made out against Mr. Lefroy, as the
contractor with the plaintiff, because if he did go he should
be entitled to their verdict upon the first issue. They must
keep in mind also this, whether they, on the other hand,
proved payment to Mr. Vignolles with regard to time and
labour, surveys and expenses ; for if they made their case
good upon that, they would be entitled to a verdict ; but as
he was instructed, they could not make good this part of
their case—that Mr. Vignolles had a claim upon the company
of much more amount than that which had been paid. It was
that claim which he should call witnesses to prove, and if lie
did so to the satisfaction of the jury, he should claim their
verdict upon the part of his client, Mr. Vignolles.
Witnesses were then called, whose testimony extended to
very considerable length, in support of the statement made
by the learned counsel. They consisted of Mr. Lea, the
London partner iu the house of Young, Murdoch and Lea ;
Mr. Lea's brother : a number of engineers, pupils and as-
sistants to the plaintiff, who proved the surveys made ; Mr.
Francis Giles (assistant to Mr. Rennie), and Mr. Brunel
(engineer to the Great Western Railway), who proved that
the charges of the plaintiff, £4O a mile, including all charges.
were at that time perfectly reasonable, and that the witnesses
who had been examined were competent to execute the work
undertaken by the plaintiff.
Mr. DUNDAS then proposed to put in the letters which
had passed between Mr. Nimmo and the plaintiff upon the
subject of this railway, upon the principle that the corres-
pondence was part of the facts of the case.
Mr. CRESSWELL objected; and the JUDGE said he should
reject the letters, but take a note of their having been ten-
dered.
Mr. DUNDAS said this was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CRESSWELL then submitted that there was no evi-
dence of any contract having been entered into by the defen-
dant with the plaintiff. It appeared that this was an inchoate
speculation only, and that when the prospectus was put
forth, no shares were allotted, and no company existing.
Mr. Lefroy, therefore, was not at that time a partner in any
co-partnership, for none at that time existed. Any engage-
ment made by any person at that time was clearly with a view
to some prospective arrangement with regard to the consti-
tution of a company, but when it was constituted by allot-
ment of shares, Mr. Lefroy did not take any. All these
facts distinctly appeared ; and according to the decision of
the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Fox v. Clifton,
and of the Queen's Bench, in the case of Brown v. Freath,
the fact of Mr. Lefroy having allowed his name to appear as
a provisional director did not affect him so as to render him
liable. It was held in those cases, that where a party actually
signed the prospectus with his own hands, yet, as he took no
shares, he was not liable. He apprehended, therefore, that
this case fell short of what in the cases cited was held requi-
site to make a party liable, and that there was no evidence of
any contract by Mr. Lefroy, or of any person having con-
tracted for him.
Mr. DuNDAS contended that there was evidence sufficient
for the case to go before the jury.
The JUDGE decided that there was a case to go before the
jury, but added that he would take a note of the objection.
Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury on the part of
the defendant. After the long and tedious inquiry as to
dates and figures in which they had been involved, he could
hardly expect to receive a very lively degree of attention ;
but he was sure, in behalf of Mr. Lefroy, he should not ap-
peal in vain to gentlemen to give him their most anxious
attention whilst he pointed out the perilous position in which
he and others would be placed if such a claim as the pre-
sent could be enforced. He trusted he should be able
to show that Mr. Vignolles neither in law nor justice, neither
morally nor equitably, had any claim whatever upon Mr.
Lefroy. What would be the position of every person in the
situation of Mr. Lefrov, if he, in 1841, was to have enforced
against him a demand of £5OOO on a supposed contract made
by him in 1836? What would be the position of every mem-
of parliament whose constituents, neighbours or friends,
taking an interest in any public question prevailed upon him
to give them assistance in promoting the origin of a scheme,
if he was to be rendered liable by such assistance, to the
whole expense of following it out, although when it came to
the point of parties embarking in it he neither became an
actual partner, nor could even make one farthing of profit
by it ? Because at the instance of those lie represented he

had taken some part in originating the scheme, and
plying it before the eyes of the public, was he to be held
liable as a partner? It was distinctly in evidence that as
soon as the shares were allotted, and they were allotted be-
fore any expenses were incurred, it became manifest that Mr.
Lefroy was not about to embark in the scheme as a share-
holder, that he took no interest in it as a partner. A partner-

ship was constituted but he took no part in it. His learned
friend said that in as much 9s he assisted with his advice and
counsel the constitution of the company he was a partner.
What was it, now, that Mr. Lefroy had done ? There were
some preliminary discussions as to forming a line of rail-
way from Dublin to the western side of Ireland, and a
certain number of gentlemen in Ireland consented to give,
some their names and some their services, to assist in bring-
ing the scheme before public attention. Accordingly, there
was a prospectus put out, and his learned friend deduced from
that prospectus this monstrous consequence that every gen-
gentleman who allowed his name to zo before the public as a
party favouring the scheme was to be responsible for the ex-
penses incurred in the prosecution of it, not for one session of
parliament only, but for many, not for the first set of plans
deposited in 1836 and in 1837, but for those deposited in
1838 ! and if this was to be the case, why not for 1839 and
1840 ? That was what his learned friend propounded as the
ground why Mr. Lefroy should be bound to pay £5,000. It
would, he thought, require but little argument to satisfy the
jury that in point of fact there was no contract between Mr.
Lefroy and the plaintiff; but before he proceeded to discuss
that part of the case he would point out the simple rules of
law by which the liability of one party to another was go-
verned and ascertained in questions of this sort. The learned
counsel then gave his view of the law of contracts, and con-
tended that according to its doctrines there was no partner-
ship in the present case, and that the mere fact of allowing
their names to appear in the newspapers as provisionalidirec-
tors did not give the authority to act for another. So strong
was this• principle laid down in law, that even with regard
to the committee of a club it was decided that one mem-
ber of the committee of a club could not bind another by
an order given in his absence, because they were not part-
ners. He mentioned this, because in a particular case which
he could name, a jury twice gave a verdict, finding for the
plaintiff, against the committee of a club. The court, how-
ever, said distinctly there was no original authority, and
twice did they send the case back because the jury had not
found according to law. What evidence was there to show
that Mr. Lefroy ever contracted with the plaintiff? Simply
that upon several occasions Mr. Lefroy attended meetings of
the provisional committee, and assisted them with his know-
ledge and advice. His learned friend tried to make these
attendances a proof that he was contracting, and that he had
embarked in the scheme, but what proof was there of that
Why, this single proof, that on the 18th of June. when the
shares were allotted, Mr. Lefroy came to assist them, but
that he did not take any. The facts of his being there when
the shares were allotted, and declining to become a share-
holder, completely annulled all the effect that might other-
wise be attributed to his" subsequent attendances. The
learned counsel then proceeded to comment upon the two
letters from the defendant to the plaintiff, contending that
from the first to the last they proved that the defendant was
never a shareholder or a participator in the profit and

- • -
loss of the scheme, anti that 111 x. Vignolles knew that
it was so. He next proceeded to read and comment upon
various points in the prospectus, urging that the general
foundation on which the speculation rested, was a desire on
the part of the solicitors to obtain the law clerkship to the
company ; and on the part of the plaintiff to obtain the en-
gineership, and that they embarked in it on the faith of their
obtaining the required deposit of £1 per share, whichin 40,000
shares would produce £40,000. The prospectus, the learned
counsel observed, stated that no shareholder should be liable
for more than the amount of his shares. Suppose Mr.
Lefroy had taken fifty shares. That would have rendered
him liable to .1;500 and no more ; but having taken no shares

at all, he was said to be liable to £5,000!- He appealed to
the jury whether that was consistent with justice. He now
came to another part of the case, of much importance to Mr.

Lefroy, because his learned friend had attributed that to Mr.
Lefroy which he thought would he most discreditable to him
if his learned friend was right. His learned friend had
suggested that the royal commission having issued to inves-
tigate the subject of railways in Ireland, Mr. Vignolles made
a sham resignation of his office of engineer to this specula-
tion, for the purpose of being employed by the government
commissioners ; that Mr. Lefroy connived at that sham re-
signation, in order that the company might continue to have
the benefit of Mr. Vignolle's services, when he was serving
the royal commissioners, who would be seduced into sup-
posing that they had an independent man, whereas they had
only the friend and employe of this provisional committee.
He (Mr. Cresswell) was shocked at hearing such a thing
against Mr. Lefroy—a gentleman who stood in the highest
station in which any gentleman could stand at the Irish bar.
The evidence, however, did not bring it home to Mr. Lefroy
that he was engaged in any such dishonourable transaction ;
bnt he (Mr. Cresswell) might say:that Mr. Vignolles, as to
every thing that passed after the 26th of September, had put
himself out of court, because he herd the office of engineer to
the royal commissioners, who would not have had him had
they known it was otherwise. He had had the benefit of
that appointment under the royal commissioners, and now
he claimed to be paid as the engineer of this company for the
whole period! Mr. Vignolles could not make out his con-
tract with Mr. Lefroy, but supposing that he could, the fact
of his having at the same time entered into an engagement
with the royal commissioners would at once give judgment
against him. He (the learned counsel) had before him the
accounts of the royal commissioners, by which it appeared
that for being employed by them Mr. Vignolles received no
less a sum than £6,400, yet now he claimed from Mr. Lefroy
the price of his iniquity. He could not do that by law. The
whole of this might be imputed to Mr. Vignolles, but he
(Mr. Cresswell) would prove that not one syllable of it could
be imputed to Mr. Lefroy. The learned counsel then
proceeded to state that the plaintiff having been appointed
one of the engineers to the Railway Commissioners, re-
signed his situation as engineer to the Great Central Rail-
way Company, who, on his strong recommendations, ap-
pointed Mr. Nimino to succeed him. From this period
all the cheques, and documents, reports, and even the

. .
)arliamentry plans were signed by Mr. Nimmo. In 1838,
qr. Vignolles asked permission from the royal commissioners
;0 accept the office of engineer to the company, and they
;ranted it, because his services were ended. This was a dis-

Einct recognition that he was not the engineer to the company.
As a matter of law, if Mr..Vignolles undertook to the govern-
ment commissioners to resign his office of engineer of the

railway, yet held it in the name of Mr. Nimino, he could not
recover for the work so performed. The learned counsel
assuring that a contract was made with Mr. Lefroy, and that

the plaintiff's engagement with the royal commissioners did
not prohibit him from engaging with the company, then pro-
ceeded to shew from the plaintiff's own admission, and from
cheques signed by Nimmo, that only £3400 remains due to

him.; and whilst he had charged at the rate of £4O a mile to
the railway company, he had charged the royal commissioners
only £l6 a mile. The learned gentleman, after a recapitula-
tion of the various points upon which he rested his case,
called upon the jury to protect his client against what he
could not avoid considering a very unjust demand.
Sir James Murray, M.D., Mr. Healey, Lieut. Colonel H.
D. Jones, of the Engineers, then gave evidence in confirma-
tion of the defendants case. The receipts of Nimmo for
monies paied to him were also put in and read. The de-
fendants case here closed.

Mr. DUNDAS replied in a very powerful address. He
said he came before the jury with unabated confidence to
claim a verdict for Mr. Vignolles, for he was satisfied that
the cause of justice and morality would be just as well served
by finding their verdict for him; as by finding it for his more
wealthy and more distinguished antagonist. The line of de-
fence which lie had taken was as unworthy Mr. Lefroy as
the instructions he had given to his counsel (for it was only
upon his instructions that Mr. Cresswell had acted), to
charge upon the plaintiff and upon the solicitors to his un-
dertaking, no less
ari offence than that of having been guilty
of a foul collusion, in getting up the whole of this business.
Very handsome conduct this in a man of Mr. Lefroy's station
and character.

The Learned JUDGE then asked the jury (it being half-
past seven) whether they were willing to proceed with the
case this evening, as it was not improbable that with his sum-
ming up and the consideration of their verdict it would last
till a late Inpr? ,
The jury intimated that they would prefer an adjournment
till nine o'clock in the morning.
The JUDGE immediately acquiesces'_, and the case was ac-
cordingly adjourned.
There remain only two other cases to be disposed of, both
of which, it is expected, will be disposed of before evening.