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

What evidence was there to show

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, and 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. Lathy 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
mat ked 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 126 k 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 126 k 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 £5O(
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 he
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 in 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
be 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 he represented he

that Mr. Lefroy ever contracted with the plaintiff
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 theini.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, and that Mr. 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, which in 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 £5OO and no more ; but having taken no shares
at all, he was said to be liable to £5,000! He appealed to
the jdry whether that was consistent with justice. He now
came to another part QL,the case, of much importance to Mr.
Lefroy, because his learned frlend had attributed that to Mr.
Lefroy which he thought would be 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 ST hich any gentleman could stand at the Irish bar.
The evidence, however, did not bring it home to Mr. Lefroy
that he was angaged in any such dishonourable transaction ;
bnt he (Mr. Cresswell) might saylthat Mr. Vignolles, as to
every thing that passed after the 26th of September, had put
himself out of court, because he held 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 claime 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
imputed to Mr. Lefroy. The learned counsel then
needed to state that the plaintiff having been appointed

Simply

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. Nimmo to succeed him. From this period
all the cheques, and documents, reports, and even the
parliamentry plans were signed by Mr. Nimmo. In 1838,
Mr. Vignolles asked permission from the royal commissioners
to accept the office of engineer to the company, and they
granted it, because his services were ended. This was a dis-
tinct recognition that he was not the engineer to the company.
As a matter of law, if Mr. Vignolles undertook to the govern.
meat commissioners to resign his office of engineer of the
railway, yet held it in the name of Mr. Nkomo, 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 slier; 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 ke 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 distinguishedantagonist. The line of de-
fence which he 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 an 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 hour ?
The jury intimated that they would prefer an adjournment
till nine o'clock in the morning.
The JUDGE immediately acquiesced, 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.