The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-03 00:00:00

FIIE SUN, _LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 3, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
Justices Crompton, Mellor, and Shee.)
MALCOLM, V. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAIL-

'WAY.

Mr Bovill said this was an action for negligence tried
before the Lord Chief Justice at the Guildhall, when the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with £3,000
damages, which vare apportioned by the jury as follows :
£2,000 for the widow, and £l,OOO to be divided amongst
the children then under age. The learned counsel now
moved for a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had
on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence.
The deceased gentleman resided at Harrow, and on the day
of the accident he had gone to Berkhamstead. On his
return to the station he was crossing the line at the proper
place to the up-platform when the express train, which was
seven minutes late, came up, knocked him down, and he
wai killed on the spot. The Berkhampstead station stands
on a sharp curve. A train coming up can be seen 100 yards
from the station when looking up the line, but at 900 yards
distance on looking across the country: The express train
was due at 2.47, and the train by which the deceased was
about to leave at three o'clock: The evidence for the
plaintiff was that no porter was at the station to warn the
deceased, but the defendants called a porter who swore that
he twice cautioned him, but he took no notice of it. The
whistle was sounding when the train was within 100 yards
of the station, and persons who were on the platform held
up their hands and shouted. The deceased the moment he
saw the engine rushed forward, but had he stepped back he
would have saved himself. If the deceased, who was an
elderly man, had used his eyes and his ears, instead of
walking with his head down thinking, he must have seen
and heard the train before it came up.

The Chief Justice said there was some conflict of testi-
mony on that head, viz., whether the engine driver used the
whistle before he saw the unfortunate gentleman on the rails.
Mr Bovill said the evidence for the defence was, that
the deceased was cautioned, and that three of the witnesses
who saw the train coming shouted and held up their hands
to him to stop. Mr Hughes, one of the plaintiff's witnesses,
also deposed, that if the deceased had used his eyes and ears
there would have been abundant time for him to stop, and
the unfortunate accident would not have happened. The
deceased lived on the line, and must have been aware that
trains passed up and down every ten minutes or a quarter
of an hour.
The Lord Chief Justice said he should have been better
pleased if the verdict had been the other way; but it was
a question of evidence, and it was entirely for the jury, who
considered that the deceased bad not been warned as he
ought to have been. There was evidence which produced a
considerable impression on his mind that the deceased gen-
tleman did not exercise that caution which a man was bound
to do when crossing a railway. That evidence was pressed
with great ability on the attention of the jury, but they
thought otherwise.
Mr Bovill said he could only urge that there was
evidence of cautioning the deceased by words, shouting, &c.
Mr Justice Crompton said that shouting and whistling at
railway stations often bewildered people, and whilst they
were considering, very frequently the mischief it was in-
tended to prevent happened.
The Lord Chief Justice thought there should be no rule.
He should have been batter pleased, as ho had said, if the
verdict had been the other way, but starting with the find-
ing of the jury that it was negligence on the part of the com-
pany in their not having cautioned a man whom they had
invited to cross the rails that an express train was due, the
question how far a man who met with his death might have
contributed to it from want of care was a matter on
which they could not lay down any precise rule, but was a
case especially for the consideration of the jury. The jury
had found that this was not that negligence which deprived
the relatives of compensation, and he was not so dissati,fied
with the verdict as to recommend that it should be set aside.
The other learned judges concurred.—Rule refused.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.
(Sittings in Error.)

The Lord Chief Justice Erie announced that the Judges
who would sit in Error in and after the present term, had
mads the following arrangements :
For Errors from the Queen's Bench, Saturday, 20th
November; Monday, 28th; and Tuesday, 29th.
Errors from the Common Pleas, Wednesday, 30th Nov.
Errors from the Exchequer, Thursday Ist; and Friday
2d December.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary, Sir J. Wilde.)

The learned Judge took his seat on the bench at 25 mis
Lutes to 12, when some amusement was created by an
elderly woman crying out at the top of her voice, " May
Sir James Wilde sit as he does now for the remainder of his
life, is the earnest prayer of a friend."