The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-03-05 00:00:00

THE ItAILW,.-S..Y ACCIDENT TO A BEL-
BROUG FITO N FARMER.

In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
of Justice, Westminster, London, on Tuesday,
before Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Stephen
sitting in banco, Mr. Underwood, Q. 0., moved, in
the case of Lander v. the Railway Passengers
Assurance Company, that upon the special case
stated by the arbitrator judgement si.ould be
entered for the plaint:ff. The learned counsel
remarked that the deceased was a farmer, aged 22
years, residing at Belbroughten, in the county of
Worcester. In 1879 the deceased sold his farm,
and went to visit his father in Salop. On the 15th
October, 1879, the deceased arrived at Stafford
Station, on his return journey, about ten minutes
past eleven at night, and he alighted from the train
because he had to change trains in order to proceed
'to his destination. After alighting the deceased
found that he had to wait some time before he
could resume his journey, and he became excited.
He then went to the refreshment room on the up-
platform, and, finding that closed, he proceeded to
thA refreshment room on the clown-platform. The
deceased was shown that he had to proceed over
a bridge which crossed the rails in order to get to
the refreshments, and the arbitrator had said that
there was no doubt that the deceased crossed over
the rails by means of the bridge. After having
been in the refreshment room for a short time the
deceased came out and attempted to recross to the
up-platform, but was knocked down by the limited
mail train to Birmingham, and received injuries
frim vvhich he died a few hours subsequently. The
deceased was removed to the infirmary, where he
was sxamined by the house surgson, who expressed
his opinion that the excitement from which he was
suffering was due to stimulants. Another surgeon
at the expressed desire of the deceased, v sited;him, '
and he expressed his opinion that the deceased.was
not under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The
umpire, in his special case, had said that the ques-
tion to be considered was whether there had been
wilful exposure to danger, and that if the Court
considered there had been wilful exposure to danger
the defendants were entitled ti judgement. lie
(the leaned counsel) submitted that the deceased's
conduct did not amount to a wilful exposure to
danger or peril, and that, even assuming that their
lordships thought the conduct of the deceased
amounted to a wilful exposure to danger or peril,
the danger and peril which the deceasad incurred
was not within the meaning of the proviso of the
policy. He cited several cases in support of his
argument.
Mr. C. Russell, Q.C., (with whom was Mr,
Colmore), on behalf of the defendants, contended
th.it the deceased had been guilty of wilfully
exposing himself to danger, and that, therefore,
the decision of the arbitrator which was in favour
of the defendants, should be upheld by the Court
Their lordships upheld the decision of the umpire
and ordered judgment to be entered for the defend-
ants, with costs.

had gone with a 50-ton engine over the slip and
aqueduct. It was then perfectly firm, Mr. A. F.
GoJs(ni seconded the resolution, which was carried
unanimously. At an extraoidinary meeting of the
company, subsequently held, the following resolu-
tion w,,s, att,fr some discussion, carried :—"That,
in pursuance of s?etion 24 of the Halesowen Rail-
way Act of 1880, the sum of £21,0.4) be raised by
t'A3 creation and issue of 2,100 new shares, of £lO
each, in the capital of the company, to be called
"New Preference Shares," and that such shares
shnll be entitled to interest or dividend at the rate
of .25 per cent. per annum in priority to the
ordinary share capital of the company, but after
existing preference shares of the company ; and
that the direct,rs be authorised to issue such new
shares on such terms aud conditi9ns as they may
I think fit.