The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-08-09 00:00:00

UNABLE TO AGREE TO A VERDICT.

At tho Ycrk Assizes, the come of " Pattlson awl Othirs o.
the Nortti-Eastern Railway Company," has beau heard, which
was an cotton brought by the executors of a Mr. Knott, an
innkeeper at Middlesbrough, for damsges under Lord
Campbell's Act on behtil of Mr. Knott's widow and four
children.
Mr. Dlgliy Seymour, QC., and Mr. Waddy were for the
plaintiff, ; Mr. Fadd, 4.C., and air. Wills, QC., were for the
Company.
The deceased died on the 161 of December last from
injuriee received in getting out of a train at the Stock.
ton Stati,n. The question was whether the accident
arose from the negligence of the defendants, or whether
the decetwei had contributed to the accident by his
own negligence. The conflict of testimony was moot
remarkable. On the part of the plaintiff witnesees
were called to prove that the train etopped, that stone
one cried out, "Stockton—change for the North," and
then the train went on again. The effect of the train
going on was to throw the witnesses backwards or
forwards. One witnees, a Mr. Irucss, got out when the
train stow il, new it go on again, and saw Knott thrown
down. A Mr. Bruce, riding in the same carriage with
Knott. heard the cry of "Stockton,' saw the door
opened from the outside, the window being up ; thought
at the time whet a pity it was that it was up, as if it
had been down Knott might have caught hold of the
frame; and saw Knott thrown down at the moment
when the train, having stopped, suddenly started a,. sin.
On the other hand, besides the porter, etationrmaster,
and policeman, whore evidence ontrarlicted the pl in.
tiff's ca-e. three p reons were called who were not ser-
vants cf the company —two wore friends of the deceased.
who were travelling in the same carriage with him and
Mr. Bruce. They did not hear anyone coll out " SNick-
ton." They saw the deceased let down the window,
open the door with his own hand, and stand on the
step while the train was in motion. One of them, Mr.
Blokey, said, " For God'. 'dike don't get out while the
train Re in motion." Another witness named Harrison
pot on the step of a carriage while the train was in
motion, add saw Knott do the same and fall. It was
admitti d on both sides that the train had not arrived
at its usual place for stopping at the time the accident
happened. As to the question of damages it appeared
that the widow and eldest son still carries on the

',witness of the inn, and that their profits had not
oaterially diminiehed.

Mr. Field, QC. on behalf of the company, sub-
mitted, in a speech of great clearness and vigour, that
4,it only by the evidence of the offkiale of the corn-
pany, but by independent evidence, he had shown
that the accident was due to the deceased's own negli-
gence.

His Lordship left the following questions to the
jury, who retired, and, after being absent for a long
tune, returned the answers as follows :—L Was the
door opened by the company's servants sr by some
one Inside the carriage? Not agreed. 2 Did the
company's servants, before Knott alighted, call
out Sfockton," or "('hinge for the North," or
both? Yes; both. 3. Did Knott reasonably believe
he wag arrived at the proper place for the train to
stop? Not agreed. 4. Was be justified as a reasonable
man by the acts of the Company's servants in sop.
posing that he might get out? Cannot agree. 5. Was
the train in motion? 'Yes, going very slow. 6. Was
Knott :.ware it was in motion? Cannot say. 7. Was
his death attributable to the company's negligence?
Cannot agree. it. Was it partly owing to his own
carelessness? Cannot agree.

The Foreman of the jury; stated that there was no
chance of the jury agreeing, and the learned cJunsel
would not agree to a verdict by the majority.
The jury were therefore discharged.