Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-03-03
From the Ball. American.
Mr.. Marshalls claim against t Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Co

A notice in the New York Herald of the claim
of Mr.. Marshall against the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, giving much mIre Importance
tot than it has received here has induced us TO in
quire at the Railroad Company's office for inior-
nation, and we have obtained the following opin-
ion of the legal counsel of the Company, which.
we think, puts the whole matter in clear and in
elgible point of view, satisfying that mischief
rather than anything else at the foundation of The
present movement:
BALTIMORE, Feb. I, 1858.
THOMAS SWAMI, Esq, President, &c.
Dear Sir:-ln reply to your note of yesterday we
make the followin, statement:
When the suit of A. J. Marshall against the BAL
tmore and Ohio Railroad Company was brought
in the Circuit Court here, declaration filed
by Mr.. H. W. Davis. setting forth the PLAINTIFFS
claim at lenth. Subsequently, and sometime beinr1
the trial, VIM. Schley, Mr.. Davis colleague, pro.
posed that, INSTEAD Of tying the with poSsh
lity of being involved in controversy about fornr;
of pleading all errors of pleading should be waived
and either side permitted to offer evidence OF mat
ter which would be admissible under any state Of
the pleadlngS, and ti,at where Specal meter was
relied on notices therof should be mutually given.
Under the agreement to this effect, which was N.
tered into. the defendants counsel gave notice of
the following deienceS:
|. That the agreement sought to be enforced by
the plaintiff, admitting his ability TO make it out L,
the full extent of his pretensions, agreement
contrary 10 the policy of the law, anil which coll
hol be sustained.
3 That admitting said agreement to be a valid
one which the Courts would enforce,yet the PLAIN
tG was not entitled 10 recover, because he laiIeL
to accomplish the object for which it was entered
into.
3. That the law of Virginia, which was accented
by the defendants after it had modified by Inc
waiver of the city of Wheeling, mentioned in thu
plaintiffs notice, was not obtained through the eli
forts of the plaintiff, and furnished him with no
ground for his present claim.
4. That there was final settlement between
the plaintiff and the defendants after the passage,
OF the Virginia law, which concluded him in thus
behalf.
The last ground of defence was not pressed in
the argument. 1t had been taken on the strength
of note from Mr.. Marshall TO Mr. McLane III
which he regretted that his 'exerons had effected
so little good, and suggested that six hundred dol
lars should be divided in the proportions indicated
by him among three of his agents, which was done
and his receipt taken; beng understood that Ills
voluntary payment was not TO warrant any furliI-
CT contribution for past services, to Imply
any consent on the part of the Company TO any
future contract or engagement for services there
after
In opening the case TO the jury, Mr.. Davis pluc-
ed in strong relief the antngonISm of the Railroad
Company and Wheeling in the contest before the
Lex islature; and III the defendants opening wa.
insisted that it was the law OF Wheeling, and not
the law advocated BY Mr.. Marshall and his friends
that had passed, and that he therefore in point
OF fact claiming compensation for failure.
In the course Of the trial, Mr.. Davis was stopped
ny the Court as he was about to offer, under.
stood, evidence as TO the nature of the means AMI
Legislature, with view to rebuff any charges or
nterenceS of improper conduct on his part; the.
Chief Justice inmatlng that it was not TO be sup
posed the Legislature had been deceived or I'M
posed upon, or that the law when passed was
tainted by any thing that had taken place previous
ly. AT the same time the defendants counsel
took occasion to discIaim publicly and most en-
phatically all intention of charging Mr. Marshall
or his friends, with conduct towards the IeCisla-
tnre or any of its members, that vas at all i'm
proper or unbecomng.
In arguing the instructions to the jury respect
lively asked Tor, the main questions were:-l
Whether the contract was void as against public
policy; and ?. As to the merits Of MarshalPs claim
admitting the contract 10 be valid one When
the Chief Justice delivered his opinion both of
these questions were reasoned, and both of them
determined in the defendants favor But although,
the Chief Justice decided that the contract il liz.
facts upon which the objections to it rested vert.
found by the jury, void as against public
policy, yet, he said that il unnecessary 10 send
me case to the Jury, lnasnuch as upon the merilS
independent of the illegally Of the contract the
plaintiff had no claim that he could sustain ''hc
contingency" to use the Courts own language
'not having happened upon which the sum of
$4,000 was to be paid to the plaintiff, and the Law
passed by the Legislature of Virginia being differ
ent in material respects from the one proposedto be
obtained by the plaintiff by agreement of February
18th, 1S47, and the passage of which, by the tens
OF tna' contract, was made condition precedent
10 the payment OF the money!
| We are able to say then, which we do without
hesitation that Mr. MARSHALL failed in his suit not
because of the plea that the contract was invalid,
out because his case was, on other grounds, with
out merit to sustain it.
is proper here to say, that in preparing our no.
| tlcc OF the defences we should rely upon, we ill.,
clude all upon which we believed the Compauy
could stand. Before the case came TO trial, how
ever. we asked you whether we should insist on
the invalidity of the contract. Your reply was,
that you would refer the matter to the Board, and
you subsequently advised that they DID not feel
al liberty to abandon any of the detences set IN
by their counsel, and the case was tried Accord
ingly
| With regard to the effect of these defences. ar
any OF them, upon the charter. we say with per-
iect confidence that no court would entertain any
doubt about the utter idleneSs of any pretence that
| ii was affected by them.
In the first place, we hold that the action of The.
Legislature in passing the law concludes all inquiry
upon the subject.
| In the next place, not only was there no charge
OF corrupt conduct or improper influences on the
part OF Mr.. MARSHALL with the Legislature or any
| OF Its members, but it was expressly diSayowe,i
| and had there been such charge, Mr. Marshall
was at hand himself, as his counsel said with tes
mony 10 diSprove it.
| And again; admitting the law which the Com
pany accepted after Wheeling had agreed to lis
modification had been obtained by CORFU pton and
That this fact could be proved yet the law was not
the law the Company wished, nor the law obtained
| by Mr.. Marshall and his friends, nor the law Ia.
agreed to obair but the law OF the city of Wheel.
ing, which he had opposed from the beginning his
relations with the Company closing with regret
| that Lis opposition had been so Intellectual
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
REVERDY JOHNSON,
| JNO. H. b. LATROBE.
Funeral Obsequies of Samuel TAYLOR, ESQ
Yesterday morning at IL o'clock the 1emains Of
samuel Taylor Esq, were conveyed to the first
Presbyterian Church. on franklin Street. for the
purpose OF performing over them the accustomed