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

Dublin t and addressed to the plaintiff. In this letter,
the defendant said that from what he bad learned since his
arrival in Dublin he was persuaded a terminus at Kilmain-
hani 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 yon 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
country was surveyed, and about that time, with a view to
the business of this railway company, an office was taken
for 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 neeessary 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 bunged 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 Mr. Vig-
nolles' case. fle had already mentioned that Mr. Vig-
nolles had several employments of his own, which he
was carrying on in England. 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-
nolles was very anxious to become the engineer to the royal
• commissioners, but it was conceived by him and 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
longer,to appear to the world as engineer to the Central Irish
Railwiiy Company, but that he should be permitted, giving
the young gentleman, Nimmo, 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 eot 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 by name, but lie 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 Mr. 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
red 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
Nimmo and Viguolles, 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

11,1 d taken some part in originating the scheme, and
pl ►cing it before the eyes of the public, was he to be held
litble as a partner? It was distinctly in evidence that as
soon as the shares were allotted, and they were allotted be
any expenses were incurre►i, it became ma►►ifest that Mr.
1..2fr0y was not abcut to ert:bark i» 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 •,s 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 gentlethen in Ireland consented to give,

some their names and some their services, to assist in biing
ing the scheme before public attention. Accordingly, there
was a prospectus pnt out, and his learned friend deduced from
that prospectus this monstrous consequence that every gen-
gentleman who allowed his name to go 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 183 G 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,: ilrat even with regard

to the committee of a club it was decided that one mem-

ber of the committee of a club couldUoCllnd 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 accordi-ng to law