The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-26 00:00:00

THE WIGAN ACCIDENT.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, before the Lord Chief
Justice and a special jury, the cause of "Anson and others
v. the London and North-Western Railway Company," which
occupied a whole week, has been concluded.
Mr. Benjamin, Q.C. the Hon. Alfred Thesiger, Q C., and
Mr. Ridley were for the plaintiffs ; Sir Henry James, Q.C.,
Mr. Pope, Q. 0., Mr. Edwards, Q. C., and Mr. Gully for the
defendants.
The further hearing of the case was resumed on
Monday, for the seventh time, and after Mr. Benjamin
had concluded his address to the jury, _

-----------
The Lord Chief Justice in his summing up of the
case to the jury, said :—The question which presents
itself for your consideration in the present case is
whether the disaster by which Sir John Anson lost his
life is properly attributable to negligence on the part of
the company through their servants, and it is neces-
sary that I should in the first place point out to you
what is the extent and what are the limits of the re-
sponsibility of a railway company as carriers of pas-
sengers, and the distinction in law between carriers
of passengers and carriers of goods. Carriers of
goods are answerable at all hazards, except under
special circumstances to which I need not more
particularly refer, for the safety and the safe delivery
of the goods they undertake to carry. Carriers of
passengers are not like carriers of goods—insurers of
their safety, they are only responsible for any injury
that may happen to the passenger while being carried
in case the injury happens through the default of the
carrier by an omission to take reasonable care to
protect the passenger from injury and to secure his
safety. It is very difficult to lay down any general
rule as to what shall constitute reasonable and proper
care, that must always depend on the circumstances
of each case, and it is a matter for the consideration
of a jury as a matter of fact, and is not a matter of
law, and must be determined by the special circum-
stances of each individual case as it is presented to the
jury. There are some cases in which it is so manifest
where an accident has happened that it can only be
the result of negligence—cases in which, as we lawyers
say, re s ipsa loquitur—t hat it will be sufficient for a
party complaining of having sustained such an
injury to simply prove the facts; there may be other
cases where the issue may be such as that any want
of reasonable care may fairly be presumed. Now it
would be incumbent on the company, the carriers sought
to be made liable, to show (a prima' facie case having
been made out) that it was not through their default
that the accident happened. You may have another
set of cases in which the mischief that has resulted may
be attributable either to want of care or to a pure acci-
dent. In such a case in my opinion, it would be for
the party complaining to show that there was actual
negligence on the part of the company before he could
recover against them. The present case is one which
I should have thought would have ranged itself under
the last category if evidence had been brought before
us to show that such an accident as that which hap-
pened on this occasion might have occurred from
simple accident, without any precise cause being dis-
coverable, and this kind of evidence has been totally
omitted, and we are left in the dark as to whether a
train can get off a line of rails from pure accident
—that is to say, without some obstruction or
some default or negligence on the part of some
one to occasion its departure from the line.
The plaintiffs in this action do not, however, rest their
case upon the general proposition which was at first, I
thought, contended for rather too strongly by them,
that it is enough to show that the accident happened in
order to entitle them to call for an answer from the
company. They take the ground that the accident must
have happened from some specific cause—a cause
which, if it existed, is undoubtedly one which amounts
necessarily to negligence on the part of the company's
servants. To say that points can be shifted during the
passage of a train over them, without negligence,
would be to put forward a proposition which could
not for a moment be admitted. If these points were
shifted while the train were passing over them, no one
can doubt that that would be sufficient to cause the
catastrophewhich happened, and sufficient to fix the com-
pany with liability by reason of negligence on the part
of the servants who had their duty to perform. If, there-
fore, you are satisfied from whatyou have heard that the
points were shifted during the passage of the train over
them, and that this was the cause of the accident,
then you must find a verdict for the plaintiff. Now
there are certain facts in the case which are uncontra-
dicted—namely, that the train got off the line At or
near the points, and that shifting the points while the
train was passing would cause the train to leave the
rails. It is possible, of course, that the train may
have been split from some other cause, such as a defect
in the line or in a carriage, or an obstruction on the
line; but no defect was found to exist either in the
permanent way or in any of the carriages; nor was it
shown that there was any obstruction on the line.
Nothing was discovered afterwards which could lead
to either conclusion, and no theory or suggestion is
put forward by the defendants which would ac-
,count for the accident. On the other hand, the
plaintiffs' suggestion is supported in a consider-
able degree by the facts. The Staleybridge train and
the tourist train were both late—a change had been
made in the usual arrangements, and the Staleybridge
train was to follow the tourist train. This, the
plaintiffs say, might render the signalman anxious to
get his signals and points set as quickly as possible
after the passing of the tourist train, and, in his hurry,
he changed the points too soon. He feels the necessity
for doing what he has to do within a short space of
time; he acts precipitately and brings about the acci-
dent. His Lordship then went into the details of the
evidence as to the position of the carriages, &c., and
the marks on the line and ballast, and said that if the
facts were as Mr. Benjamin had presented them, his
argument was irresistible, and the carriages must have
run along the rails of the loop line, showing that the
points were shifted. If the defendants could put their
finger on any other circumstance which might have
caused the accident it might be different ; but they did
not, and no other cause was suggested. They grounded
their case simply on facts, and did not rely at all on
any scientific evidence. If you think, he said, that
the scientific evidence of the plaintiffs is correct,
that will go a long way to establish their case' for it
corroborates that of their other witnesses as to the
facts. Here we have a state of things entirely con-
sistent with the plaintiff's view, and further sup-
ported by the scientific witnesses. The defendants
say, "We will bring facts to contradict scientific
evidence; no theory is worth anything as against facts ; "
and they call the signalman who says most positively
that he did not shift the points, and the man at the
canal bridge who corroborates him by saying that the
signals which he saw showed this statement to be
correct. But it is impossible to shut one's eyes to the
fact that the Wigan pointsman is speaking with the
greatest interest; for although he is not now in the
company's service, still, when you come to consider the
horrible position of a man who by a hasty act has hurled
so many fellow creatures to destruction, it would be
very probable that he would endeavour to deceive
himself and to school himself into the belief that
he had not done the thing which was the cause of so
terrible a catastrophe. If you can place reliance on
him and believe that the facts are as he has stated,
then the defendants are in the right; and he is cor-
roborated by the canal bridge signalman as to the ap-
pearance of the lights. But then it may be that
Mr. Benjamin's suggestion is correct—namely, that
when he found what he had done the natural desire
arose to screen himself from the consequences of so
dreadful a mistake, and he immediately shifted the
signals and points back again to the position in which
they ought to be during the passage of a train. From
the fact of the green light showing, the legitimate in-
ference is that the points had not been altered,
but there was a sufficient lapse of time for Mr.
Benjamin's suggestion to have been carried out.
All these questions are purely for your con-
sideration, but before you find a verdict for the plain-
tiff, you must be satisfied that the company have been
guilty of negligence which led to the accident. If you
believe the testimony of the defendants' witnesses as
opposed to that of the plaintiffs', then you will find a
verdict for the defendants. The question for you is,
Was the splitting of the train, which led to the subse-
quent catastrophe, caused by the negligence of the
defendants? You will not be troubled with any
question as to the damages, for it has been agreed to
settle the amount of them in another manner, should
it be necessary to do so.
The jury retired, and after a short time returned and
found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

HOW TO FEED CHICKEN.
(From the Live Stock Journal and Fancier? Guide.)

Most of us are now surrounded by a lot of growing
chickens at the present time, some older and some
younger, but perhaps the majority, considering the
season,just about leaving the hens. And a word or
two need not be amiss about their thriving as we wish
them to do. First of all, a great deal will depend upon
not feeding them too often. Many and many an ama-
teur splits on this rock, feeding his chicks as often
when six or eight weeks old as he did when only say a
fortnight out of the shell, and thus never giving them
time to get any real appetite, without which nothing
will healthily grow. It is very well to feed newly
hatched birds say every two hours, though even then it
is not very well, unless care is taken that not a scrap of
food be left after each feed, but the whole two hours
passed with no opportunity of eating anything but
grass, insects, and so on. That is the "great secret,"
the patent process; if any haven't thought of
it, let them begin now, and after each feed of the
little chicks, unless they have to be left for some time,
serape all remains of food away. But, as they grow,
the time between must be extended, and at two
months old they ought not to be fed oftener than
every four hours. It not only saves trouble and food,
but makes larger growth. Water, on the contrary,
will of course be always by them, and let it be always
fresh, always clean, always cool. As to the food itself,
every week brings us questions as to what is the best
food. Any sound wholesome food is good; thriving
young animals don't need to be brought up according to
any hard-and-fast line, and dieted like a regiment of

soldiers. There are, perhaps only two things really to be
shunned, viz. :—I. Don't feed entirely on maize, ground
or whole; and 2, don't use any great quantity of bran or
coarse pollard—we say coarse pollard, because in some
parts, the fine "sharps," or middlings, are called pol-
lard. A very favourite mixture of ours is half Sprat's,
or Brown's, or any good cooked food, and half finely
ground oats; and it is a favourite with chickens too.
Then, if short, or for a change, we mix sharps and
barley meal, or boil some maize (Indian) meal, which
is good in part, but, as we said, do not feed chiefly
upon it; and it is good once or twice a day, with large
breeds, to mix with the soft meat a portion of minced
and boiled greaves, or other animal food, and the bone-
dust so much spoken of. There can be little or no
doubt that the immense size shown by some exhibitors
is due to a large use of meat. Each must judge for
himself about this, for our own part we do not approve
of over-much forcing, and generally find that these
identical successful exhibitors of such monsters do not
breed from these huge specimens, but from others of a
more moderate size. Then for grain—and we would,
as a rule, feed with grain last—we have wheat, barley,
buckwheat, oats, and the clean white Dan i so much
used of late. After a good trial of it, we again give,
from personal experience, most emphatic testimony in
favour of this grain. Old and young birds are fond of
it, and it has the merit of being easily seen and picked
up from the ground. We trust the supply will not
fail. It has the great advantage of scarcely swelling
at all in the crop.