The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-08-22 00:00:00

LOCAL CASE.

THE LATE RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT BRIERLEY

HILL.

At the Nisi Prins Court on %tinnily last. before Mr.
jostler Ityks, the ease of instill and Wife. .kdruis, e. the
Great Western Railway Company, Caine Ott
Mr. llodllenton. it C., and Mr. J. 0. Griffits, were
Counsel for the plaintiff; nnd Mr. Powell, Q.C., and Mr.
H. James, for the defendants.

This was an action brought by Mr. and Mrs. insult, the
brother-in-law and sister of Emma Sylvester. to recover
damages in respect of the death of the latter through
an accident /ai defendants' line of railway at ttrierlev
Hill on the 30th May last. which accident the plaintiff,
alleged had a iscri through the nerligence of the defend-
ants. A model of the railway station and platforms was
place/I on the counsel's table. And materially as,isted in
elucidating the facls as laid before the jury, and in clear,
log up the difficulties which the witnesses were constantly
involving themselves when speaking of the "an" and
" down" toes. On the above evening, at nine n'eleek.
the deceased, who occasionally asAiste/1 her briber-in-
low at Biierley Hill, went to the station. She obtained
her tielot, and Was about to cross the line, when the en'
pros, train, which did not stop at Bib rley Hill, passed,
lot ,eked the poor woman down and so injured her that

,die died froni the effects in fen days. At this station
there in a cro,,ing on 1110 line itself, and a step down
front the platform, which sten is covered by strap or lid
when the tr.,ins are in. At the time when the accident
happened the step was uncovered, and the deceased had
just gone down the step and won crossing the rails on
-xhich the express train was trtivel7ing when she was
knoeked down and killed as rlreuuilv stolid.

After two witnesses hal been examined.
His Lordship enquired what was the regligenee
ged ?

Mr. Powell, Q.O handed np to his Lordship a report
of a ce of" Walker r. Midland Railway Company-14,
Law raw,
Mr. Gritlits anbmitted (lot) that the crossing place was
tipsafri, unless the company ivied ,nrae extraordinary ore-
roil in ti prevent accidert. amlth at th.re was negligence
in the ll company allowing the express train tn pass with-
. __

out any warning. oreover. the step descending to the
line WAR open be passengers to pens.
Ills Lordship soil there WNS no negligence shown that
could go to the jury : but, further then that, there was
the strongest possible contributory negligence on the
psrt of the deceased herself. lie suggested a non-
suit.
Mr. Griffith deinnrreil. on which

His Lordship said be tint a very strong opinion on the
noint. hut of coarse Mr. firiffits bad is right to decline to
ho nonsuitel. He did not think that there Wll,l 'My neg-
ligence shown on the part of the defendants. If persons
walked across a railway they brought accidents npon
themselves; that was contributory negligence. If he
saw a man riding a'ong the road and walked under the
horse's legs, that was contributory negligence.
Mr. Grithts assenting to a nonsnit.

Hi I.r.rdelip added 'addrnit th;jar' v that he senuld
. '.. • ..

withdraw the ease from their consideration. Where
there W:l3 evidence it was entirely for the jury: but in
this case there was no evidence. there was nothing to
lay before them, therefore the ease would be withdrawn
from them.
The plaintiffs were thereupon nonsuited.