The Express.
London, England, 1861-06-17 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.- Jrxe 15.

Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westminster (Before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
r. GREAT XORTIALRN 11 tII.WAT COIIIPAST.
13.1/10.

This action was brought by Mrs. Pent, the widow and
executrix of her late husband, on behalf of herself and nine
children, to recover damages in consequence of Mr. Pent
having been killed through the alleged neglirence of the
defendants' servants. The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Bovill, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Garth were counsel for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Couch, and Mr. Hull,
represented the company.
On the 23rd of April, 1860, Mr. Pym was a pass anger in
the Manchester express train, which left Riug's-cross
station at 10 o'clock in the morning. It consisted of engine
said Weiler, eight carriages, IPA two break-vans, the de-
ceased being in the Bradford carriage, the fourth from the
tender. On arriving at the crossing at Hadfield the train
oscillated violently, and the Medford carriage fell over upon
its side and watt dragged a consider able distance. Mr.
Pym was thrown npou the line. and regained inch
serious injuries that he ultimately died. The inxidait &nese
from • portion of the rail snapping in two, and the fractured
pieces were exhibited in court. On the morning of the oc-
corn nee workmen hail commenced relaying the whole cause.
ing, in consequence of orders received a dry y or two before,
but they had only removed& part of the ballast when the
Manchester express arrived, and several other trains bad
safely passed over the line during the nioruing. It appeared
that two or three months previously the rail in question—a
double-headed " wing rail, and of theordinary dimensions—
was found to have • longitudinal crack at one end, anal •
similar crack in the flange at the other. A workman got
rid of the secend crack by knocking off the flange, and then
refixed the rail, turning the unworn side upwanls, and
pacing the end with the remaining crack in a siding ; but
tie. part from which the flange had becu taken still remained
as part of the main line. The negli{enos imputed to the com-
pany consisted in u-sing a rail in such an injured anal weakened
state, which was not equal to the traffic it had to bear.
Mr. Pym was a }iertfotd magistrate possessing an nnenctura-
bervl income of 3,700(. a.year, and at the time of his death
had ouly reached his Cat year. Ile left • widow and nine
children, the eldest of whom being 13, and the youngest
only two months, and having died without a will the
bulk of hie property went to his eldest son. Mrs. Pym had
• jointure of 1,0001. a-rear, and each child 100/. during the
mother's life, but at her death it went to the eldest son.
(hi the question of pecuniary loss it was shown that the
children, with the exception of the eldest son,
could nut be brought up and educated in the manner
in which they won'd have been had the father lived, and
that the widow would not be able to maintain the position
which she formerly occupied.
For the defence it was contended that the state of the
rail did not render it unsafe, and that the rail was perfectly
equal to the strain to which it was subjected. A considerable
number of engineers of eminence were called in support of
this view of the case ; and it was shown that, with the
weight of the Manchester express, the rail could not have
deflected more than one-twelfth of an loch, while it would
deflect three-eighths of an inch before it would break. la
the present case nothing but the leap of the driving wheels
to a considernble height could have fractured the rail.
The jury, after a brief absence from court, found •
venlict for the plaintiff—darnagea, 1,0001. for the widow,
and 1,500/. for each of the eight children. The eldest son,
who inherits the bulk of his father's property, was excluded
from the estimate of damages.