The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-03-04 00:00:00

VERDICT FOR A RAILWAY COMPANY.

The cause of "Hayward v. the Great Northern
Railway Company" has been heard in L-ndor, before
tho Lord Chief Justice and a Spe .ial Jury. This c,..se
ozcupied four days, and cmcluded with a verdict for
th 3 company. It was an action U r an injury to the
plaintiff canoed by the terrible accident on the Great
Northern Railway at Newark in June tact.
The accibnt in question was a very terrible one;
neatly 20 ;Arsons lost their lives, and about 60 injured.
It occurred on the 20th of Juusrlast, under these cir.

An excursion train belengleg to the Great Northern Rail-
way Company started from carton, places In the West RiC lag
of Yorkshire, upon a J rurney to L rmion and bock on the
MAO day. The excursion train arrived &ably in London,
mid the great, r number of the passeugsla started back from
London, leaving King'recroas at 9 2,1 pm., the pr roar time
The train, confine( of nt,etcen cant:imp], betides ureter)
and tender and four miarde vine, proceeded alley to
Grantham, which It left at 1 4 am. (about two minute,
tot.), and proceeded rafely until it reached, at its proper
time, a rpot about three-router* of • mile south of the
N.. week steal,. At this point there is a nerve and a t ridge.
Almost t.nmelttety treore the pureneer train arrived at a
point. few font south of the Mt to a ir odi train helougleg
to the Great N oftern Reilway Company had broken down,
sod hoot caused one of its waggons t a foul rhe main down
bre, upon which tie passenger train wound have to pars.
The Spot being at Inch a distance from the station It wee (It
Won Bahl) impeesible to warn the passer ger train of the dan-
ger hy signal. Tee goods trainliwes gob got twentr-eve miles
au to ur, and without lights. Immediately after discovering
the bresk-down of the geed. train, the guard 0! thi.t train,
however, took A lantern to exhibt it to any appro:ching
train ; but he lad scarce'y time to leave his van for that
pillion when the passer gee train come round the curve, sod
was red teen by the gas: at 'vitro about 150) or 4003 tr.is from
him. It strook the waegro whieh woe on the nue, than ion
boouded, and fell, if the line on the bank aril rioter. The
greater number of the puma net r eau-Imm were driven seated
the engine or against each other. It was found that one of
the surgeons of the gore`s train, b. longtug to the Manchester,
end Lincolnshire Railway Compavy, had lost Its
wheels and ex!e, and the axle wan four,d, twisted god
bent, and one of the wheels II thee appeared—all
the other wagger.' being found duly conpled—ttrat this was
the MAO of the accident, and mutt RAI found at the to font
held on the bodies of the person+ 11.i:Cd-4AAt is, that the
accident arse from the breekhot of that safe Upon ex 1111-
nation it was found that there was • Cam or imperfection
r und the end of the axle where it had broken from the
wheel, nod the rase for the plaintiff wee fn Wotan, that
this was prima jaec eviderice of negligence, or that there
woe negligence tu the driving of the goods train Tire cue
for the company was that the fliw In the axle weir such as
e mid not be discovered by ordinary care, and that the act:-
dent was Inevitable, or erste from C+USCP 0,4 under their
control. A great deal of ecientiae evidence was given on
their behalf, and it appeared that the into was of the beet
kind.

At the cl no of the case, the Lard Chief Juatice
summed it up to the jury with Ida usual rare, leaving ts
them, with proper direction, the question of negligence.
He pointed out to them that a railway compel y did
not warrant the safety of the'r paarengere, and they
were only b tund to take reasonable care. There was
prima facie negligence, but on the whole of the evielesc;
was it Co. especially considering that the evidesce
for the defence showed that the axle wee of the best
kind, and that the flaw was secret? Here wan cm,
tally a strong body of evidence to chow that the de-
fee; could not be detected. If that were so, could the
cunpany be baid to have been guilty of negligence in
not detecting it? In the first inetance the question
arose as to the Blanchester and She Nide' Company,
as it tens their AVINCLI ; and, in the next plate, Lee
Great Noe teen Railway Company were bound to take
the Itlnnelneeter Company's carriages, and what, then,
c gild they have done? Was the re any ne3ligence on
tl e part of the Great Northern Railway Company in
allowing inch a carria3e to come on their line? If
their Mai no negligence on the put of the Slade
field Company there could IParcely be any on
the part of the Great Northern. Thee as to the sng-
grated negltgence on tint part of the driver eel the goods
train; that, again, was fur the jury to cenaider under
all the circuuastances. If the heat accident having
occurred—the servants of the company could have
averte 1 the second by any reasonable weans, the
company were liable, but otherwne they were not.
So, again, if there was any thileg in the in tele of driving
the getch train which led to the accident, it might
make the company liable. But the jury must he able
to see clearly Letore they found for the plaintiff that
the aceident arose from neglige mat of the aervantee of
the company. In concluslen, the Lord Chiel Juitice
put it to the jetty distiectly, 1, whether there was any
ne3ligerce on the part f the Minchester Cimpany in
alletwerg the waggon to be- run with tete flaw in the
axle; 2, if so, whither there wae any negligence on the
part of the servants of the Great Northern Company
in not I xlminiag the axle; 3, wan there negligesce on
the part of the dryer of the goods train either in net
ehowing a light to warn the approaching train or in
going at an undue rate?

f tie jury retired to conahler their verdict, but in a
few minutes returned with a verdict fur the .r.nup:+ny.