The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-02 00:00:00

The Explosion on the North London
Railway.

Dr Lankester yesterday resumed the inquest on the body
of the stoker, whose death was occasioned by the explosion
of the locomotive engine on the North London Railway.
The jury having inspected the wreck of the locomotive at the company's works, at Bow,
Captain Tyler, of the Board of Trade, was examined at
great length, the effect of his evidence being that the ex-
plosion was owing to a weakening in the bolts and stays of
the engine.
In answer to Mr Sleigh, who appeared for the company,
Capt. Tyler said it was impossible by visible iaspecaon to
detect the defects in the stays of the engine which. caused
the accident, except there were either leakage or be Bing.
The Coroner said the jury would now deliberate on. their
verdict, They would of course consider whether there
had been any laxity of inspection, and if they should be of
that opinion they would of course say so, Captain Tyler
had said that it would, be impossible by visible ineLN.etion,
to detect the defect that caused the accident; but if the
jury thought that, there should bo more attention paid to
the examination of the state of the locomotives they could
express that opinion in their verdict. No criminal act
had been committed, as no law had been broken ; but if
there had been au act stating that a certain thing seoald
be done, and the provisions of the act had not
been complied with, then there could be a
verdict of manslaughter returned against some party ; as
it was, such was not the case. lie felt certain that any re-
commendation the jury might feel it their duty to attach to
their verdict would be given the greatest conlideraticn to
by the London Railway Company,
The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and after
an absence of 40 minutes returned to the inquest nee,.
The Foreman read the verdict, which began by stating
that Davis met with his death in consequence of the es,
plosion of the fire box of No. 6 engine.
The Coroner —That is accidental death.
Several persons exclaimed " No, no," and one said,
" The foreman has the report, and he ought not to be in..
terrupted."
The Coroner—That must be left to me.
The Foreman added that in the opinion of the jury the,
rivet-heads ought to have been more frequently examined,
when there were such evident signs of weakness,
Tne Coroner—Then your verdict is accidental death,
with recommendations to be sent to the directors.
Several gentlemen said the word "accidental" was not
in the verdict.
The Coroner—You don't say it was not accidental,
surely.

A Juror—We purposely leave that an open question.
The Coroner—The death must have born natural, aced-
dental, or violent, What do you say- it was ?
A Jc.ror—We say nothing about it. We purposely left
it open, in order that, it pressed upon us, we might retire to
reconsider the matter.
The Coroner—You had better retire and bring in a ver-
dict of manslaughter against the company.
Mr Sleigh said, perhaps the jury would pardon him, but
what he supposed they intended to convey was that there
was no evidence to affix blame to any particular indi-
vidual.

A Juror—lf we bring in a verdict of accidental death,
are the company liable for the consequences.
Coroner—Yes, certainly. The company will be civilly
responsible.
A Juror--I don't see how we can come to the conclusion
that the death was accidental, when we are of opinion that
it arose from the neglect of proper care.
The Coroner said he was only anxious that a verdict
should be returned which would be effective. He thought
it best the jury should return such a verdict as would en-
able a jury to convict, and not one upon which they must
acquit.
A Juror—Before we again leave this room I should liko
to know whether we are bound to return either a verdict of
accidental death or manslaughter ?
The Coroner—Yes, you must one or the other, and name
the parties whom you consider responsible.
A Juror—l think we ought to be bound by Johnson's
Dictionary. What is his meaning of the word " Acci-
dent ?"
The Coroner—That may do very well, but in this country
we go by common sense.
The jury then again retired,and after a short absence re-
turned to the inquest loom, when
The Coroner asked if they were agreed ?
The Foreman said their verdict was, that the death of
the man William Davis arose from fracture of the base of
the skull, and that that fracture was caused by the explo-
sion of No. 6 engine on the North London Railway on the
16th of August last, and also that the death arose from,
misadventure.
•
The jury appended two resolutions to their verdict, one
specifying that there had not been proper care in the exa-
mination of the locomotive, and the other that some more
effectual stei,s be taken for the future.
The Coroner, foreman, and jurors then signed the ver-
aloe wad reoolutioao, wLa a copy was ordered to be trans-
mitted to the directors of the Noah London Railway Com-
pany.
The proceedings then terminated.