The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-21 00:00:00

THE RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT LEIGH.

Samuel Hindley, a tall, robust looking man, was
placed in the dock charged with the manslaughter
of Richard Higginson, at Leigh, on Monday, the 26th
of November. Mr. Higgins and Mr. Cottenham prose-
cuted ; the prisoner was defended by Mr. R. Scott.
The circumstances of the case, as they came out in
evidence, seemed to be briefly as follows :—The prisoner
was one of the foremen over the platelayers in the
employ of the London and North-Western railway, and
it was his duty to look after the rails and have such
repairs done as were necessary, and to guard against
any accidents the company had laid down a rule to the
effect that it was the duty of the person who had charge
of any platelayers who were about to make any repairs
upon the line to have a man stationed at least one
thousand yards from the place where they were about to
lift the rails, with a signal to apprise the diiver of any
train that might be approaching, or if in a descending
radiPnf. to see the signal was placed 1.200 -yards distant
before they commenced to lift the rails. On the day in
question: the • prisoner proceeded, accompanied by four
other plate-layers, along the line between Allerton and
Leigh, for the purpose of repairing one of the rails, and
on arriving at the portion of the line where they were
about to commence operations, he despatched a man
in each direction with a signal, but, it was alleged on
behalf of the prosecution, that before they had gone
half the distance laid down by the rules by the company,
he raised some of the rails, and proceeded with the
necessary repairs. A luggage train drawn by two
engines, and composed cf fifty-seven waggons, mine in
sight, and before it could be brought to a stanastill,
reached the place where the rails wcra lifted, and conse-
quently one of the engines was thrown off the line,
and resulted in the death of the deceased. It was con-
tended.that the accident was caused by the negligence of
the prisoner by lifting the rails before the men, whom
he had despatched, bad arrived at the distance specified
by the rules.—The prisoner was, after a long investiga-
tion, found guilty, and sentenced to three calendar
months' imprisonment,• with hard labour.—A question
of law was reserved for discussion in a higirer court.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice BLACKBURN.)
LAWTON V. RADCLIFFE.—ThIS action was brought by
Mr. Lawton, an innkeeper, to recover compensation for
the seduction, or technically for the loss of his daughter's
services, through her illness before, at, and after the
birth of her illegitimate child, of which the defendant
was alleged to be the father. The case was rather a
painful one. It'appears that the girl concealed the birth
of her offspring, and a judicial inquiry into the merits
of the case was held. The plaintiff and her friends de-
nied the birth, but the case was proved, and the mother
was sent to gaol for one month. That being so, the
present action was brought against the defendant, who
was said to be the father of a family. From the evi-
dence we learn that he was an old sweetheart of the
girl's, but she stated that at the time of his
marriage every connection was broken off. Some months
afterwards the defendant renewed his visits to the plain-
tiff's house, and it was after that it appeared the girl
was seduced. Defendant was a particular friend of
the plaintiff. Nothing was suspected at the time of the
girl's pregnancy ; but for some time previous to the
birth, her services became of less value to her parents
than they were formerly. Dr. Bradley attended at the
birth, and he and the parents endeavoured to obtain
from the girl a knowledge of the name of the father of
the child. At first, however, she refused to tell them,
and at length stated it was a man named Hollingworth,
but afterwards admitted that it was the defendant.
Yesterday she stated that the defendant had given her a
pound, and offered to give her any amount of money to
conceal his name. The defence was that the defendant
was not the father of the child ; that the plaintiff's
daughter had an improper intercourse with Hollings-
worth and others. A witness for the prosecution, how-
ever, rebutted this evidence, by showing that the defen-
dant had told him before the birth of the child that he
had unlawful intercourse with the girl. The jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £5O.