The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-05 00:00:00

hearing, and one of the peoposed sureties wu the creditor I
who had put him into prison.
The Chief Commissioner said it was rather singular that
the person who had put the man into custody should appear
to hail him oat. I

The attorney for the insolvent admitted that it was a
novel application.
The Chief Come
arrest ?

said it was, of course, a friendly

The attorney answered affirmatively, and said it was
done to recover property fur the creditors and to prevent a
chancery suit. An assignment was made sometime back,
and 2001. was in dispute. For that sum it was useless go-
ing into the Court of Chancery, and it was, therefore, ad-
vised that the insolvent should be arrested by a bona fide
creditor and proceedings adopted to recover the 2001. for
the creditors. With that view a creditor arrested the in-
solvent, and was now willing to become his surety for his
apIICILMICC on the hearing.
ifis Honour I.IILTIUg /133:1C Nome remarks on the singu-
larity of the ease, proceeded to examine the detuinisig
creditor and !imposed bad. lie elicited from him the ob-
ject of the arrest and his solvency with that of the other
proposed surety—The court granted the application and
ordered the dinharv.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY SESSIONS.
CROWN COURT.—TronausT, JELT 3.
Tux RECENT RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.—THE Losu EATON

CoLusiom.
John Robson, charged with wilfully driving on the 20th
May, at Long Eaton, an engine against a certain other en-
gine, the property of the Midland Railway Company.
Mr. Wihuore said that the prisoner was charged under
an act of parliament made in the third and fourth year of
her Majesty's reign; and the section which this case came
under Was UT of the same net. lie did not suppose that the
defendant had maliciously run into the train, but it was
quite evident he had neglected his duty. The company did
not prosecute out of any vindictive feeling, but it was a
duty they owed to the public to have a full investigation of
the Case.
&v.:eel witnesses were then examined, the principal of
whom were the following:
Thomas Tomlinson, the pointeman at the Erewssh North
Junction, leading to Coding Park, said a passenger train
came up between twelve and one o'clock from Nottingham.
Robson was the driver. A coal train was also coming from
Codnor Park to Leicester. He lowered the semaphore fur
the call train to approach, and kept up the Faunal danger
to the passenger train. The danger signal was up for two
hours before the trains came up. He heard Robson's en-
gine whistle on leaving Long Eaton Junction, and saw it
approaching, the danger signal being up. The collision
then took place.
Wm. Parker, superintendent of the goods department,
went to the spot after the accident and noticest that the
signal could be seen from the Long Eaton 'station. The
prisoner also told him that he saw the signal but that his
attention was directed to a ballast engine, which was ap-
proaching from Leicester. Ile also said that atter leaving
the station he could not see the semaphore in consequence
of some empty carriages on the curve.
Toualinseu was recalled to prove that several of the pas-
sengers were injured.
Mr. Denison then proceeded to analyse the evidence oil
duced for the prosecution. lle was interrupted in his ob-
servations by the Court, who recalled Tomlinson, who in
answer to question,-, said that hearing the trains approach-
ing he ran down the line about 50 yards with a red flag.
He could nut ace the passenger train approaching, in conse-
quence of the empty carriages on the curve, and he sup-
posed that in consequence of them the driver could not see
the semaphore.
Mr. Denison thanked the court for the important facts
elicited, and called attention to the fact that the prisoner
Was kept in the company's service for Will, time after the
accident had occurred, and continued driving on the same
line.
Mr. Wilmore—Because they could not get another.
Mr. Renisen observed that the Midland Railway Com-
pany must be in a deplorable state of destitution if they
could not obtain a skilful driver to take the place of the
prisoner. He condemned the getting up of this case, as
most disereditchle on the part of the company, screening
themseleer by nut calling the evidence which they ought to
have done.
Some witnesses to character having been called and ex-
amined,
The learned Chairman summed up the evidence. Ito
concurred in the censure passed upon the company by the
learned counsel far the defence with regard to Mr. Barlow,
the engineer of the company, not being present to give evi-
dence. lie thought Mr. Barlow ought to have come and
given his evidence; such conduct was &seeped and not
the way in which a great company should conduct themselves
towards the public.
The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict
at Not Guilty.
Till; FATAL ACCIDENT AT CLAY Cito,43.
John Thom/non, aged 10, railway guard, was charged
with negligently omitting the performance of his duty
whilst conducting a train, on the lbth of May last, at Clay
Cross, on the North Midland Railway, whereby the liver
of the passengers were endangered. Mr. Wilmore prose-
anted; Mr. Adams defended.
Several witnesses were produced, who detailed the cir-
cumstances attaiding this deplorable occurrence. Their
evidence was merely a repetition of that given at the length-
ened coroner's inquest which was held since the collision.
Mr. Adams, in his address to the jury, said that what-
ever opinion they might form about the conduct of the pri-
soner, there waspot in court tied opinions as to the misma-
nagement of the company. In these gigantic undertakings
and great monopolies it was necessary that the public tra-
velling by these iron roads should have confidence in the
safety of the line, and this could only be dune by keeping
their time re4dar, which had not been attended to on
thin line. Ile contended that the company stood
convicted of recklessness and irregularity in the despatch
of trains, and that it was not the fault of the prisoner.
The Chairman, in summing up, said it was quite clear
that in this particular instance the guard hod nut time to
go back the distance named in the rubs, and as it was ad-
mitted that the engine-driver has the power of recalling
a guard on the engine being remedied, and that the guard
heard the driver cull out "• all right," could the jury say
that he had violated the rules ?
The jury returned a verdict of Nut Guilty.
The verdict in both MCA was received with clapping of
hands by a number of guards and drivers who were con-
gregated in the body of the court.
—Derbyshire Wu inside.