The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-12-08
Tho Richmond pispatch.l

,ua f,r The Richmond Dispatch.l
l"'r .r.-oy. VA, December z, 1875.
80 rho syndicate OF contractors
the S .hc Valley Railroad Company, the
SganS .o bich. in favor Of the company, |
rrsnA u, .oa ron Saturday, involved the most
r!S ,s questions In ra''rosa.osl.e,hs' anu
i T.trnd sou copy OF tne ,ustia " go. pre-
asrrS 81 Judge Sheffey, counse 81 lot Inc com
1Iany and given to the Jury oS Suo $3.50, ms.
,mVblin. which resulted IN sne cons.ac sSs
i Lius their SUIT. You viii remember toas
~. mI'r cSief engineers estimate was some rory
!pp ~. dollars less than that MADE OF the
lnG5t engineers. and the contractors sned
u. rho amount and for damages resulting
;y,rn the stoppage OF the worA anu hou-
rayment, and consequent hardsnips 70 'nen.
Tbr following are the Instructions:
Thr defendant moves the court 70 instruct
49, ;ury tha, il they believe from tne tesIi.
.-nny ths, the work charged IN the ptaint'ris.
hill Of particulars under the DESCRIPTION o.
W, r,b.rycsvation," &C., to the words "cut
,,,rc d,lvered," inclusive, was done oy the
rIaio,itI. in the construction OF delendahcs
lnad between Stauntcn and Salem undef Inc
,s-;,,cn contracts A and Is, and that IN ac-
n,.dapcc with said contracts the engineers
,Ionr ,hc line of said road made up monthly
'nj fnal estimates Of the work Gone on
,hrir respective residences up TO the ga
S,r Of December, 1874, when the Work
~. suspended. as authorized By said
c5p,rac:,; and if the jury further
tf,;ayc from The testimony that the chief
t u" Of the defendants afterwards-to
a., on he - day Of January, 1875-made
IF
,I,cn the mrs must regard said revised and
sny! estimate of slid chief engineer as con-
r'r,iy. between the parties; and they cannot
o. b41ind such final estimate or find YER
die, for The work so done except upon the
ha,,. o. such final estimate, unless the jury
tprryr ither from the testimony that there
Yqs fraud or intentional misconduct on the
n,r, Ct toe chief engineer 10 making up such
revised and finpl estimate.
. |: the jury believe from the testimony
That the work charged IN the plaintiffs bill
If PARTICULARS as aforesaid was done as afore-
s,ii bv the plaintiffs under the written con.
tracts ! and B; taat in pursuance OF said
contracts The work on defendants road was
sn.rroded on the I'D Of December, 1874;
,h1t the engineers on said road made final
e.,;ma'c< OF The work done on their respec-
five residences up 10 the Odd OF December,
1874. inst afterwards to wit, on the - day
Of Jnuary, 1S15-the chief engineer OIL the
d,frGdanis made q revised and final estimate
of,hr work embraced in the estimates OF SAID
resident engineers, then the jury must re-
c-,rd such fioal estimate Of the chief engineer
q. >upersedng and substituted, to all in
tents and purposes, In place OF the estl-
mai. Of such resident engineers, and as hnal
and conclusive between the plaintiffs and the
deCcpdlnt. although the jury may differ in
opinion with the chief engineer; and they
csnpot find q verdict for the said work eX.
ropl upOn the basis Of said chief engineers
final estimate unless they believe, further,
from the testimony, that there was fraud or
Intentional misconduct on the part OF the
chief engineer in making up bis final esl'
mate.
8. If the Jury believe from the evidence
that The work charged in the plaintiffs Dill
OF PARTICULARS as aforesaid was done BY the
plaintiffs under the written contracts a and
Il: that, as authorized by said contracts, the
work on defendants road was suspended on
the I'D Of Decent Der, 1874, and that the chief
engineer OF defendant, in the exercise OF
the power and authorities conferred upon
him by said contracts, undertook to make,
and did make, revision and final estimate
OF said work as to the quantity, character,
and value thereof, then the jury are 10.
sruc.ed that such tipal estimate of the chief
engineer is binding both In law and fact, and
they must disregard all the evidence intro.
duced before them tending TO show that
The decision of the chief engineer was an
erroneous decision; and they can hod
for the plaintiffs for the work en-
braced in said final estimate only upon the
basis of such final estimate, unless they be-
litve, further, from the testimony, that there
was fraud or Intentional misconduct on the
par, Of the chief engineer Ia making up his
said final estimate.
4. II the jury believe from the evidence
that the work charged 10 the plaintiffs bill
OF particulars. as aforesaid, for the construc.
ton of defendants road from Staunton TO
Salem WAS done by the plaintiffs under the
written contracts A and b; but, as author,
lied by said contracts, the work on
defendants road was suspended on the
ed Of December, 1874, and that after.
wards-to wit, on the - day OF
January, 1S75-in the exercise OF the
power and u:hority conferred upon him By
said contracts. the chief engineer under.
took 10 make, and did make, final estimate
of the quarterly character and value of said.
work; then. although the jury may. from
other testimony introduced before them,
differ in opinion with the chief engineer In
respect to his Classification of loose rock and
solid rock, and u .hough they may think the
engineer made q mistake Ia the classical
ton, and that bis decision on this point was
an erroneous decision, still they cannot re-
wise aud reverse said chief engineers dec-
sion and set aside his aal estimate unless
they believe. further, from the testimony, that
there was fraud or intentional misconduct
on the part of the chief engineer in making
up his 6aal estimate.
5. To justify the jury in dIsregardiDg the
chief engineers fioal estimate in either OF
the aspects OF the case set forth in the fore
going instructions they must be we'll salts
fed Of the fact of fraud or Intentional mis-
conduct; that Ia to say that, 10 the exercise
Of the power given him by the contracts A
and B 10 revise and alter the final estimates
OF the resident engineers, the chief engineer
acted corruptly and with intent TO defraud
the plaintiff e'.....
6. II the jury believe from the evidence
that the plaintiffs had in quarries belonging
10 persons and parties TO this suit, or in their
own possession, on the ed day Of Deem.
Der, 1874, the day Of the suspension OF the
work on defendants road, rock gotten out
by them preparatory 10 doing the work
specified in contracts a and u, but that such
rock bias al no time been delivered on the
line of the defendant, or accepted by the de-.
ftudan,, then the jury can fad nothing for
any such rock 10 this action.
TEE VERDICT. b .
The following is the verdict given under
these Instructions: -
We, the jury under the instructions
given by The court), find verdict for the
plaintiffs on the basis OF the chief engineers
estimate; and thereupon, 10 pursuance OF
The terms of the agreement OF PARTIES entered