The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1877-06-12 00:00:00

June. Ford, 40 years of age, farmer, Beerhacket,
Dorset.
Emily Elizabeth Harford, aged 19 years, West
Parade, Weymouth, dreesmaker.
- - - - - -

_
Sarah Jane Gibbs, 25 years old, wife of a farm
labourer, living at Sutton, near Everereeeh.
Mary Haines, 21 years lsl, single, Southmead.farm,
Ileheeter. . . .

Mr. J. F. Norris (instructed by Messrs. Stone,
King, and King) appeared for Meseta Hicks and King,
two of the proprietors of the bridge, and Mr. J. H.
Clifton appeared for Mesons. Mitchell and Bruce, two
other proprietors, and for Tanner, the toll-collector.
Mr. (lark (of the firm of Simmons awl Clark) was in
attendance, and it was understoed that he wax watch-
ing the case on behalf of the friend's of one of the in-
jured persona. Mr. It. Biggs (sleputy-cormer for
North Somerset) was amongst those present at the
inquiry.
The Coroner mid it became their painful duty that
day to enter upon an inquiry lat., a terrible and most
melancholy cataetrophe which occurred in Bath on
Wednesday ; a catastrophe which brought gloom and
distress into the midst of their gaiety and seamen of
enjoyment when they were celebrating the great
occasion which had brought so many visitors to the
city. Amongst those visitors were the unfortunate
sufferer; whose bodies they would presently view, and
the accident brought to their far distant homes; the
game sad tale of their distrees. They left their homes
early in the morning to join in the festivities at Bath.
but came to the city to find on the very threshold
thereof their unexpected and awaiting graves. A
more melancholy thing could scarcely be paralleled.
The jury had a duty to perform in connexion with this
matter, and the more they dwelt upon the misery of it
the more it seemed to intensify itself. Their duty
, must carry them further, and they must ascertain, if
they could, how and under what circumstances this
accident came to pass. They would have to inquire
whether the bridge from which these persons fell was
In the first instance properly constructed; whether it
was constructed in en perfect and proper a manner that
It was capable of beaming the pressure of the number of
persons on it—said to be over 100. though the exact
number was not yet aecertained. If it should turn out
that the structure WWI not /4 properly constructed in
.the first place, the jury would agree with him that it
wan nothing but a snare and a death-trap. Perhaps,
on the other hand, it might have been suffered by time
aml decay to get into a state of dilapidation. But in
either case there was a very grave responsibility
attaching somewhere. Whether the bridge was in
the first instance properly constructed, or whether
subsequently it was allowed to fall into a state of
dilapidation, there must he somewhere or the other
very grave responsibility, and to determine that wnulsl
form the arduous, painful, and he was afraid
lengthened duty devolving upon the jury on that
occasion. lie was sure they wssuld go through with it
to the end, and by the care they would bestow upon it
they would attain a recta which would be satisfactory
to their own consciences and to the general public, who
had a great interest in the inquiry. He slid not
propose to take any lengthened evidence that day. It
would be necessary for the jury first to view the
bodies, and then be would take evislence as to the
identity of the deceased, and subsequently have the
testimony of Home witnesses who saw the bridge fall.
They would then have to adjourn to obtain scientific
evidence, which of course would be most important in
the ease, awl upon that evidence the verdict wonhl be
grounded, and a satisfactory result arrived at. That
scientific evidence would take some time to prepare,
and it would require some time to consoler whom to
select for the purpose of giving that testimony. This
would of necessity occasion adjournments from time to
time, but after they had viewed the bodies perhaps,
they would return to that court, and they would then
take the evidence as to identity, and also as to the
extent of the accident. lissw it occurred and the
causes of it would he a 'natter ssf further investigation.
lie reminds' the jury, in going to view the bodies,
they would pees the scene of the accident, and said it
would be satisfactory if they would see the conslition
in whbth the bridge was, though he esippossel they
would not obtain very much information from that.
It would be for scientific gentlemen to nay whether
there were proper props for the support of the bridge,
and how they Mlle to he torn away.
Mr. It. Biggs (sleputy-coroner for North Somerset)
said, an there was a rumour, and something more than
a rumour, that one or more bodies were carried away
by the stream, it MU quite possible that the corpses
might float out of the borough into the county district,
for which he, as coroner, warn responsible. The
Coroner would, perhaps, allow him to say that, follow-
ing the courteous precedent he (Mr. English) had
established in similar cases, Ise 'should not, in
exercising his discretion to the bent of his ability, hold
any inquiry on bodies that might be found in his
district. Ile was quite sure the inquiry the Coroner
welds! make would be so exhaustive that there would
be not only no advantage, but a great disadvantage in
his re-sspening such painful details after they had been
closed by him. Ile merely wished to make a statement
to met himself right, and he was sure the result of Mr.
English's inquiry would give satistsction.
The Coroner hoped that the expressions of Mr.
Biges would go forth to the public so that they might
know the reason why no inqueets would be helot on
those victims of the accident whose bodies m,ght be
found in the county.
Mr. J. F. Norris maid he appeared for some of the
shareholders in the Wislcomhe bridge, awl it was
their desire and WWI to render hi the Coroner and
jury who bad to investigate this matter the utmost
possible assistance that it woold be in their power to
render, with a view to sletermine how the accident
atone. Any esng'esti sr' the Coroner or any nwmber
of the jury might make they would most cheerfully
do their utmost to facilitate.
Mr. J. IL Clifton sail he represented some other
owners of the bridge —Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bruce—
and the echoed cordially all that had fallen from the
learned Counsel. He need hardly ash' that Mr.
Mitchell and also Mr. Bruce would he mat pleased to
give whatever facilities; they could, and to tender the
jury every information they could possibly give.
Mr. Norris-1 appear for Mr. King and Mr. !licks.
Mr. Clifton—l think theme gentlemen with Messrs.
Mitchell and Bruce constitute the whole of the present
proprietary of the bridge.
'the jury then proceedesl to view the bodies.
On their return to the court the following witnesses
were examined :
Mr. Robert Parsons said—l live at Dewlish, near
Dorchester, and am a carpenter ansl joiner. I knew
John Thorne. He lived at Burton-gate, Charminster,
a mile from Dorchester. He was a surveyor, and his
was 59 years old last August. I saw his body at
Wideombe station on Wednesday afternoon, and
recognised him. I came up from Dorchester with the !
deceased. Eight of us were in one carriage, and seven
out of eight went into the water; I was the only sine
who slid not. I did not mee him in the water. Mrs.
Warren and Mr. Thorne's son were members of the
party, and they are now in the Hospital Mr. Thorne
wag the only one of our party who was killed.
Eliza ',intern, a young woman, deposed—l resisle at
Rechford-house, Bath, where I am in service.
Edward ',intern was my brother, and he lived at
Sutton, near Eveic.eech. Ile was a farm labourer,
and was 30 years of age. I identify his con-ic which
is lying at the Widcombe police-station. I have no
knowledge of the cause of his death.
William Ham-fond, a lasi, testified—l live at West-
wade, Weymouth, and am a blacksmith's apprentice.
The deceased Andrew Harford was my father He
woe a shoemaker, and lived at West-parade, Wey-
mouth. He was 47 years of age. The deceased
Elizabeth Harford was my sister. She WM a
dressmaker, and lived with her father. She was 19
years old.
Mn. Ernest Field, house-physician to the Royal
United Hospital, Bath, said—The deceased Andrew
Hanford was brought to the Hospital on Wednesday,
quite dead. Ile clearly died from drowning; he had
no injuries of any kind, beyond a slight bruise over
the eye.
Mr. William Edward Paull—l am &farmer, of Pim
perne, near Blandford. I know the deceased, John
Gifford Male, who was my brother-in-law. He was a
fanner, and was 31 years of ire. I was not with him
when the accident occurred. He died in the Hospital
this (Thursday) morning. Ile lived at East Chinnock,
near Yeovil
Richard Gibbs—l live at Sutton, near Evercreech,
and am a farmer's labourer. Sarah Jane Gibbs" was
my wife. She was 23 years of age. I was with her
when the accident occurred. We had hold of each
other's hands, and we went down together. I never
saw her again until after she was dead. We were
crossing the suspension-bridge at the back of dr
Great Western Railway station. We were little more
than halfway over.
The Coroner—The bridge was tilled with people, us
many as it cords' hold!
Mr. Norris submitted that the question was a lead-
ing one. It might be a material point for inquiry how
many persons were ssn the bridge, and he would rather
that the Coroner would let the witness give his own
account.
The Coroner observed he supposed the witness could
not tell the number.
Witnesms, continuing, said—The brislge was rather
full. The man shut the toll-gate, or it would not have
happened. If he had not shut the gate, the folk would
have gone off the bridge.
The Coroner—What happened then, the bride
being filled !—They shut the gates because a man did
not get change of a shilling to isay his toll
What followed !—And then it broke away both ,
sides, and fell into the water. My wife and I were
precipitatesl into the water.
Mr. Clark (of the firm of Simmocs and Clerk)—Was
there a placard inviting persona to cross the bridge?
Mr. J. F. Norrie said no one could hAve a locos "Wadi
at their inquiry but those who represented the deceased
or the bridge authorities. It was just possible to con-
ceive that these proceedings might take the form of a
criminal prosecution. Mr. Simmons, he thought, did
not appear for any of the friends of the deceased, and
he submitted he had no lore: ,ssdL
Mr. Clark eaid he appeared for a person who had re-
ceived a severe injury. He thought the questien was
a proper one. The bridge authorities had announced
their willingness to give every information.
Mr. Norris replied that he was prepared to give every
information to the coroner ansl piry, but at present he
wan not prepered to volunteer information to aid per-
sons in their endeavour to make the bridge authorities
liable in a civil court
The Coroner ruled that he would not put the question
Propounded by Mr. Clark.
Witness continued—l got out as well as I could, and
I saw my wife got nut about ten minutes afterwards.
She was quite dead.
Mr. Clifton here intimated that Tanner, the toll
collector, was too unwell to be present at the inquiry
that day.
In reply to the foreman of the jury.
Mr. Clifton said Tanner would be in attendance
before the close of the inuiry.
The Foreman intimate?) that if Tanner were not
forthmming, they would Like to put a question to the
witness.
Mr. Clifton—He will be here.
The c 'oroner—Would it not be better to put it to the
witness?
The Foreman—We want to ask the witness what
induced him to take that road. It is very much the
mime question that Mr. Clark •put.
The Coroner—What induced you to take this road?
Witness—lt was said that that was the nearest way
to the show.
Who said It I—You could read it out there.
A juror—lt was posted up l—Yes.