The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-12-11 00:00:00

ACTION AGAINST A RAILWAY
COMPANY.

In the Court of Queeli's liendh, in London, the cause of
" Penver (an Infant, by nest friend; a. the Cornwall Railway
Company," has been tried, and was an action brought .1
behalf of a child, by his next friend, for an injury sustatued
through a railway accident.
The child is about six years old, and his mother, I
with this child and there others, had been by the rail- '
way to St. AustelL According to her case she had
got out with a baby in her arms, and had assisted
out two of the children, and was getting the other child
out, when the train suddenly moved on just as her foot
was on the step and the child fell, and his leg was caught
between the step and the platform, and the result
was that the limb was embed by the train. The
poor woman fainted with emotion, and when she re-
vived the bystanders would not let her see the chill,
who was taken to the hospital, where the limb was
taken off. Her story was confirmed by an eye-
witness, who Mated that the train moved on suddenly
without signaL On the other hand, it was contra-
dicted by two passengers and by one of the guards, the
other not being called. There was also the evidence
of a fourth witness, a first. class passenger, named
Warrener, who stated that he had noticed the child at
other atati• ns, as he had rid stockings on, and he
positively Mateo that the child had got out and was on
the platform, and then got on the step, and so fell
between it and the platform; but the mother, and
the hospital nurse who held the child while the leg
was being taken off, swore that the child hail not red
stockings but drab. It was suggested by the counsel
for the plaintiff that the witness might have noticed
some child in red stockings at previous stations, or that
the child in question, when being dragged along with
his leg mangled and covered with blood, might have
deceived him, and led him to suppose he had red
stockings. But the evidence of the witness' at all
events, as to the fact of the child having got out before
the accident was confirmed by the evidence of a clergy-
man, the Rev. Mr. Gard, who stated that he saw the
accident, saw the child go to the step, saw him pulled
down and dragged along, and rushed forward to save
him. And this witness stated that next day he saw the
mother, and that she said the child had gone to the
door to play with the handle.
The cue lasted all day, until the afternoon. At its
close, after an able address from Sir J. Karslake on
behalt of the company, and from Mr. Hu Idleston on
the part of the child, the Lord Chief Justice summed (
the case up to the jury with his usual care acil clear-
ness. The question, he said, was one entirely for
them, anal it was for them, without being misled by
natural sympathy for the poor child, to determine the
CIVIC upon that remarkable conflict of evidence which
had unfortunately arisen. If the evidence of the
mother conl I be entirely relied upon. of course her
case was made out; but it was flatly and posi-
tively contradicted by several witnesses, and in
such a way that if their evidence was true hers
could hardly have been otherwise than intentionally
untrue. Most of the witnesses of the company
were quite independent, and it was. indeed, most ex-
traordinary if they had deliberately invented thelr
story—contrary to morality, to truth, and to the com-
mon feelings of humanity. If, however, their story
were true, here could not but be false. According to
their story the child was safe upon the platform before
the accident happened. This, ot course, was utterly
inconsistent with the woman's statement that she was
getting the child out at the time it occurred. It
might be that from a desire to obtain compensation
for the child she had reconoiltd it to her conscience
to misrepresent tha matter to the jury. But that
was for them to consider, and it was for them, weigh-
ing the evidoice carefully on one side and the other,
to determine the qu. Fitton. The evidence of Mr.
Warrener and of the clergyman, Mr. Gard, was ex-
tremely remarkable, but eepecially that of the former.
The only suggestion was that he must have been mis-
taken, but of this the jury must judge whether, if no,
it was a mere mistake as to the colour of the stockings
or a mistake as to the child. No reason was suggested
why these witnesses should be supposed to be speak-
ing untruthfully. Then there was the evidence of
the clergyman who made the praiseworthy effort to save
the child • and as regarded this witness there was this
remarkable circumstance, that even assuming the rev.
gentleman was mistaken in his statement of what the
mother said, she did not appear to have riven to him
the account she had given to-day. On the whole, it
was for the jury to say whether they believed the wit-
nesses on line side or the other. If the woman's story
were true, that the train moved on as the child was
getting out, then they ought to find for the plaintiff;
but, if otherwise, they would, of course, find for the
company.
The jury found for the company.

A JOURNALIST ASSASSINATED IN
HES OWN OFFICE.
The New York papers of the 21Itb and 27th of No-
vember report a crime which has caused great senra-
tion in America. On the evening of the 25th, Mr.
Albert D. Richardson, a correspondent of the New
York Tribune, was shot in the abdomen by Daniel
McFarland, a lawyer, while standing in the Tribune
publication office. Ile is in a very critical condition,
and his recovery is doubtful. The coroner has held
what in America is called an " ante-mortem "
examination into the circumstances of the care.
In answer ti the usual questions in such eases,
Mr. Richardson stated that he resided at Wood-
side, N.J. ; he was unable to say whether he
would die of his wound or not, and announced that he
had some hope of recovery. He then proceeded to
make his statement as follows :—" About five o'clock
yesterday afternoon I stepped into the Tribune office
and asked for my letters; at that moment I first saw
Daniel MeFerbtul behind the counter, pointing a
pistol at me ; he seemed to me tohave come from behind
somewhere; ho fired instantly and simultaneously with
the first glance I got of him ; the muzzle of the pistol
in McFarland's hands was, I think, atr,ut four feet from
me ; the ball entered my stomach (abdominal region); I
came out of one of the north Park-row dorm., and went
upstairs into the editorial room, where I laid down on
a lounge, and asked that a surgeon be sent for; Dr.
Swan and other physician,' came, and I was afterwards
removed here."
The jell found the following verdict. "That thee
Albert D. Richardson mitre to his wounding '
pistol in the hands of Daniel McFarland, on the _
. of November, 180." The coroner accordingly iis•ued
, a commitment for McFarland, who has been lodged in
• the Tombs.

by a
25th

HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE LATE
DUCHESS D' AUNIALE.
Maria Caroline Augusta de Bourbon, Duchess d'Aurnale,
whose lieath took place on Monday, WM a daughter of Leo-
pold, Prince of Salerno, of the Neapolitan branch of the
Bourbons, and of Marie Clienentine, an Archduchess of
Austtia She was born at Vienna on the 26th of April, 1822,,
and passel the early years of her life at the Oturt of Vienna.
There, into, she was first introduced to the world under the
care of her mother, the Princess of Salerno, alai of her god-
motki r, the Empress Caroline, the third wife of her anent-
f ether, Francis 1. of Austria. She was therefore, by her
mother'a side a niece of the Empress Marie Louise, and a
nieces In tha second degree of (Merit Marie Antoinette.
The young Princess was in the bloom of youth when her
family returned to take up their residence at Naples, and
negotiations were opened in more than one quarter for her
marriage. Her choice fell on the fourth son ttf King Louis
Philippe, Henri d'Orisans, Due d'Aumale, and heir of the
House of Condd, a Prince of about her own age, but who
had already, at twenty-two, act mired no common
distinction in the world by a le illiant campaign hi
Algeria, and especially by fir exploit of the capture
of thp Srnalala of Alel -el - Kader, The Duke and
buchem d'Aumale warp married at Naples on the 25th
of November, 1844. Their lot was destined to great vicisst-
ludas of fortune--to splendour, to exile, to celebrity, to re•
tirement, to great enjoyments and great sorrows, to distant
journeys, anti to the simplicity of domestic life ; but in all
these changes Rail accidents the Duchess b ire her part with
an entire sett devoted sympathy in the fate of her husband.
Several children were born ot this marriage, which has
just been thus prematurely terminated. But of these one
only survives, the young Doc de Guise, born at Twickenham
on the sth of January, 1854, now the last representative of
tios Uond6 branch of the French Royal faniily. Of the
other children of this marriage two boys died In infancy.
The eldest, known as the young Prince de Conde,
who was born at St. Cloud on the 15th of November,
1841, was a young man of singular premise. but
he, too, was pursued by the fatality which seems to
have attached itself to that illustrious name. Having
sailed on a voyage to the Australian colonies and the
1 ur.her East, he caught a typhus fever at Sydney, and died
there, a few months after he hail left England, on the 24t1, of
May, 1866 Brom the loss of her firstborn, under those whi-
tol circumstances, the Duchess d'Aumale never wholly re
covered, and in her fait hours the thought of rejoining ho: