The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Aran. 18.

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and
Barone Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)
MALKIN a. MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action by the plaintiff, as administrator of
his cleansed wife who was killed when passing over a level
creasing at the Holbeck station, near Leeds. At the trial
before Mr. Justice Keating, at Leeds, the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1501.
Mr. Field, Q.C., now moved by leave of the learned
jligit for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was
gnat
the evidence. It appeared that the deceased was
killed by a train which was regularly advertised, and was
well known to peas the station daily at the time of this
occurrence. The alleged negligence on the part of the
company consisted in the absence of a foot bridge for
passengers across the line at the station, and of
porters to warn people not to cross the rails
when a train was due ; but the learned counsel
contended that this was not sufficient to render the
defendants liable. He said that, although the Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire Railway Company had carried 651
millions of passengers in four years, they had only one
fatal accident at a level crossing, and that occurred at a
station where there was a bridge. If the defendants were
required to have porters present to warn people not to
cross, that would be calling upon them to do for passengers
what they could as well do for themselves.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—That is what I have always said.
Is it contended that a porter is to lay violent hands on a
person, and say, " You shan't cross "1 You cannot pawl
-
My assert that. Then, is it to be said that a porter should
tell people that, if they went across when a train was
, coming, they would be killed! Why, they knew that as
I well as the servant of the company.
I Mr. Field said that even if the servants of the company
I tried to prevent persona passing over the line in the pre-
sence of danger they would not succeed. When a train
arrived the passengers rushed across at all points and
I would not submit to be stopped. In the present instance
' there was only a single line about six feet wide, and it
could scarcely be expected that the company would erect
' a bridge there for people to pass over.
The court granted a rule nisi.
THE CANE OF CHARLOTTE WINSOR.

This case again came under discussion to-day. Mr.
Folkard, the counsel for the prisoner, said she was quite
ready to assign errors on the record, and, in fact, her
attorney hail already delivered the errors to the crown.
If their lordship, would fix a day fora sitting in the Ex-
chequer Chamber, her attorney would apply for a habeas
corpus to bring her up to assign errors. The 9th of
May was the first day of the sitting, in error, and if the
case was to be argued then it would be necessary to give
eight days' previous notice ; but the errors could be as-
signed on an earlier day.
Mr. Baron Martin—l have no doubt, from what I have
heard this morning, that if you apply to the Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas he will appoint any day you like.
Mr. Folkard could not say that he desired the arguments
to take place before the 9th of May.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—lt would be moat inconvenient to
have the case argued on the 9th or 10th of May, those being
the days appointed for errors from the Queen's Bench.
Mr. Baron Martin—l agree with Mr. Baron Bramwell
upon the matter of convenience, and think it would be
better to take two days during the present term.
At a subsequent period of the day the Solicitor-General
again alluded to the case, and it was ultimately arranged
that lie and Mr. Folkard should consult together and
make a joint application to the Chief Justice of the Com-
mon Pleas to appoint a day.