Alexandria Gazette

CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL
The cases of Letson and Rutter, against the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, which have occupied the attention of the Circuit Court of the United States in Baltimore, more or less during the last fortnight, were finally disposed of on Monday last. The first case was an action of covenant brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants on the contract executed with them in the name of the Company by General McNiell, late President of the Company, on the 27th of July 1843, without the authority of the Board of Directors; and which was promptly disaffirmed and declared void by said Board upon its first presentation to them on the 20th of the same month.

All the evidence offered in the case, even that given in on the part of the Plaintiffs themselves, clearly showed beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the contract was made by Gen. McNiell as President of the Company, without any authority and in direct opposition to the recorded sentiment of both the Stockholders and Board of Directors, who under the charter were alone authorised to mature such contract, and after it was closed, under the instructions of the court, the jury at once rendered a verdict for the Defendants We were present during the trial and feel authorised in saying on the best authority, that even if the court had not instructed the jury on the law, they would without hesitation and just as promptly, have rendered their verdict for the Defendants upon the evidence in the case.

The second case of the same parties against the company was an action of assumpsit for the work and labor actually done by the plaintiffs on the line of the canal under the void contract entered into with them by General McNiell as President, as above mentioned, before they were notified of the disaffirmance and annulment of it by the Board. The bill of particulars filed in the case presented the claim of $2425. During the progress of the trial a compromise was entered into, the Company agreeing to pay one thousand dollars in full of all demands. A juror was accordingly withdrawn and the case entered agreed, each party to pay his own costs in the case; the exception taken to the opinion of the court in the first case was withdrawn and the judgment stands final in favor of the Company.

The entire litigation in reference to the McNiell contract of 1843 has thus been finally disposed of.-Frederick (Md.) Herald.