COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NOV. 22
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr. Baron Martin and a Middlesex Common Jury)
THE WORTHAM-BRIDGE COMPANY v. THE PETERSFIELD RAILWAY COMPANY
This was an action by the Wortham Bridge Company, having property in the neighbourhood of Southampton, to recover the sum of 215l. 13s. 5d. from the Petersfield Railway Company, under the following circumstances:—The Petersfield Railway Company, in the last session of Parliament, introduced a bill for the purpose of extending their line of railway to Southampton, and they proposed to pass over the property of the plaintiffs in a manner which seemed to the plaintiffs likely to injure their property very considerably. The plaintiffs, therefore, determined to oppose the bill of the defendants’ in Parliament, and took the necessary proceedings to that end. Some time afterwards negotiations were commenced by the defendants, with a view to buy the plaintiffs’ property, and thus put a stop to the opposition to their bill; and a paper writing, called heads of agreement, to which the seal of the Petersfield Railway Company was affixed, but which was not signed, was given to the plaintiffs. One article of the proposed agreement was, ‟That the Petersfield Railway Company should pay all the expenses incurred by the Wortham-bridge Company in their opposition to the bill in Parliament and the costs consequent thereon, whether the Petersfield Railway Company should be successful in obtaining the sanction of the Legislature to their bill or not.” The bill was rejected by Parliament, and it was now alleged that the Petersfield Railway Company sought to repudiate the proposed agreement. The document was tendered in evidence, when it was found that it was not stamped. The plaintiffs having paid the penalty and the duty, it was received by the Court. The sum of 215l. 13s. 5d., Parliamentary expenses, was made up of a sum of 33l. paid to the Parliamentary agents; of 105l, the country solicitors’ bill of costs; of 19l. 12s., the account of the engineer; of 11l. 8s. 9d., the account of the surveyors; of 2l. for the plan of the property; and of 44l. 1s. for witnesses’ travelling and hotel expenses—there having been three witnesses, proprietors of the Wortham-bridge property, who came to London as a deputation, to assist in opposing the bill of the defendants.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott and another learned gentleman represented the plaintiffs; and Mr. H. Lloyd appeared for the defendants, for whom it was contended that the directors of the company had acted beyond their powers. They had affixed the seal of the company to a proposed agreement without any authority from the company.
Mr. Baron Martin said that, assuming it was the deed of the railway-company, the defence that affixing the seal of the company was ultra vires could not be entertained, and a verdict must be found for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed.
The Jury returned a verdict accordingly.
It was then arranged that the bill of costs should be referred to a Parliamentary agent to be examined.
The other cases in the paper were called on, but, having been settled by the parties, the Court adjourned to Thursday next, at Westminster.