The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-04 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—GUILDFORD, Aua. 3.
(Before Mr Justice Willes.)
THE EG HAM ACCIDENT.
At the sitting of the court this morning, Thomas Lee,
an engine driver, and John Trainer, a fireman, employed
upon the South Western Railway, surrendered to take
their trial upon an indictment which charged them with
the manslaughter of five persons—namely, Joseph Clegg,
John Coppard, Edward Hall, Robert Wilkie, and William
Winfield.;
This was the case for the prosecution.
Sergeant Ballantine said he should submit to the court
that these really was no evidence whatever to be laid before
the jury in support of the charge that was made against
the Prisoners. In cases of this description it was difficult
to define !exactly what amounted to gross negligence or
criminality; but on the present occasion he shculd say
broadly that there was no evidence at all to prove that the
prisoners had been guilty of either one or the other. With
regard to the speed the evidence was most conflicting; and
even if the train had been going at the pace stated by some
of the witnesses, he should submit that the prisoners were
justified in going at such a speed, when they were aware
that a train would be started at an interval of five minutes
after them.
Mr Justice Willes interposed, and expressed his opinion
that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the pri-
sonears were accountable for what had occurred. It was
clear that there was very great confusion with regard to the
aignals, and after the statement of Col. Yolland it appeared
to be rationally probable that if the second guard, who had
absconded, had not neglected his duty in applying the break
the train might have been stopped, and the accident would
hot have taken place. Another point was, that the pri-
soners were entirely ignorant of the fact that the first train
Was to have stopped at Egham, and that, according to the
signals, instead of being stopped at the Rusham station,
Which was at no great distance from Egham,they were actu-
ally, according to the regulations, invited to go on. He did
know what the jury thought of the case, but .he must say
for his own part that he thought the system which had been
adopted was a wrong one, and that if railway companies
would persist in pursuing such a system, andfatal accidents
,resulted, juries would be quite justified in compelling them
r Pay heavy damages to the relatives of those who lost their
lives under such circumstances. The question on the pre-
kesent occasion was whether the driver of a train, who was
pt in ignorance of the state of affairs upon the line, was
be held responsible for an accident such as this, and
this was the only question for the jury to consider.
Mr Beat urged that it should be left to the jury to say
Whether the driver was not guilty of criminal negligence in
going at such a speed as 50 miles an hour when so near the
station. He admitted that there was some conflicting tes-
timony Upon this point ; but he submitted that this was a
tatter for the consideration of the jury.
Mr Justice Willes said he doubted whether this was suf.
ficient under the circumstances, and that in order to justify
hjulY in convicting it must be shown that the prisoners
ad been guilty of gross and culpable negligence of such
tpdo:3aus.i character as could not be misunderstood or considered
After some further discussion, the learned judge said
t would be better not to withdraw the case from
the jury, and Sergeant Ballantine accordingly was about to
address them:on behalf of the prisoners.
The jury, however, interfered, and said they entirely
coincided with the view that had been taken of the case by
the learned judge. They were strongly of opinion that there
had been no culpable negligence on the part of the prisoners,
and that the accident had arisen in consequence of the com-
PallY having given dangerous instructions which could not
be carried out.
Mr Justice Willes said he was of the same opinion, and
it would have been very wrong to convict persona in the
position of the prisoners solely because they were unable to
carry out arrangements of the description that had been re-
ferred to. It seemed to him that the accident was entirely
to be attributed to the mistaken regulations made by the
Company, and not to any criminal negligence on the part of
the prisoners, and that it would only be a waste of time to
proceed further with the inquiry.
The jury then returned a verdict of not guilty. A similar
verdict was then taken upon the coroner's inquisitions, and
the prisoners were ordered to be discharged from custody.
There is only one criminal case remaining to be disposed
of, so that in the course of to-morrow Mr Justice Wilke
will no doubt assist in disposing of the cause list.
On the civil side Baron Martin triod several common.
jury causes, but none of there presented any features of
interest to the public.