The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-13 00:00:00

The Railway Accident near Lynn.

KING'S LYNN, Aug. 12.
The inquest on the body of Mr. John Dennis, who
died from the effects of injuries received on Mon-
day, the 3d, at the accident on the Lynn and Hun-
stanton Railway, was resumed at the Town-hall,
Lynn, before Mr. E. M. Beloe, deputy coroner, this
morning.

Mr. Edwards appeared for the Great Eastern
Railway Company, and stated that the verdict of
the county jury was such an extraordinary one, and
its terms so extravagant, that the company had de-
termined to appeal, as it were, from that jury to the
present one, and to ask them, as gentlemen of the
town, to go as fully into the inquiry as it had
been gone into before ; for he (Mr. Edwards) could
not believe that two bodies of men who brought un.
biassed minds to the subject could arrive at the
same decision as had been arrived at.

Mr. Edward Blomfield repeated his evidence, He
also said that he did not make any complaint to the
company of the state of the fences before the 20th of
July, except to the navvies when they were making
the line. : He knew from tho nature of the soil that
the ditches would be dry in summer.

By Mr. Edwards—When I complained I appre-
hended that the bullocks might be killed ; but I did
not suppose it would throw the train off the line.
When I made the complaint, I was told wire fenc-
ing was being put up.
By the Jury—l did not think the line safe as to
the fences when the Government inspector gave his

report.
Thomas Andrews, whitesmith, Lynn, said he came
home by the first train from Hunstanton, and went
back to Wootton with the engine and carriages
that went to the relief. He saw a third-class car-
riage on its side, with the compartments broken
through. He observed a little bit of rottenness in the
carriage ; but a part they had to knock out was as
sound as when it was built, ho should say.
By the Jury—lt was a till that was rotten, not
the framework. In washing the carriage it might
have become rotten.
Mr. Billing produced a piece of rotten wood
taken from the end of the carriage he came out of.
Mr. Robert Howlett, of Stowbridge—l remember
the 3d of August. I was travelling by the train
from Cambridge. As we were getting near Lynn,
I observed either a bullock or a heifer on the line. I
did not communicate to either guard or engine-
driver, or any one. It was feeding by the side of
the line. It did not appear to take any notice of the
train, and I looked at it until the train was quite by.
By the Jury—l was about midway of the train,
and I did not observe that the engine-driver whistled
or took any notice of it.
John Thompson, the shepherd, said he had had
bullocks in the fields since Michaelmas last, and
they had not got on the line. Both at Mr. Blom-
field's and Mr. Hammond's fields there never was a
fence since it was put up. He complained of the
fences to the workpeople, and to " our squire," and
to " Lawyer Swatman likewise." He haU never
seen above a foot of water in the ditch.
Mr. T. R. Mills, station-master at Lynn, said—
The servants have never complained to me of stock
on the line, not in one single instance.
By the Coroner—Fifteen minutes is ample time
between two trains ; we consider ten minutes
enough. The second train cannot be called a fast
train. It was a special train, which knew the cir-
cumstances under which it started, and it had to
stop at two places on its journey.
By the Jury—The driver should report to his
foreman at the finish of his journey, and also at the
next station he passes if he sees any obstruction on
the line. The driver of the Cambridge train nor the
driver of the next train from Hunstanton did not
report that a bullock had been seen on the line. I
believe the drivers of the first of the two trains
might have pulled up with perfect safety, supposing
he took immediate precautions to protect his train.
I should certainly consider a bullock a dangerous
impediment. The driver was guilty of a dereliction
of duty if he did not report that ; but he did not
arrive at Lynn in time to do so. The accident oc-
curred while he was coming into the yard. There
was certainly time for him to have reported the ob-
struction to me.
Mr. Edwards said it was not in evidence that any
driver or guard had seen bullocks on the line.
Witness continued—The Cambridge train only
coming to the junction ought not to make any differ-
Elle° in his reporting to me: I think the driver of
the first of the two trains did the best thing in not
stopping to put off the
_bullock.
James Beaumont sai.d—l drove the train om
ge on Monday. I saw no
Hunstanton to Cambridge
obstruction on the line. I saW a bullock partly in
the dike, and partly out on the other side of the
fence. I just caught a glimpse of it as I went by.
I had nothing to tell, and I told nothing.
Mr. Howlett,recalled—l was sitting with my
back to the engine. The bullock was to my left.
Another person, my wife's sister, saw it as well as
myself. The bullock that I saw was feeding by the
side of the ballast.
Thomas Wakefield was also examined. He had
turned out many carriages for defects, but never an)
for rottenness.
Mr. Wm. Attock, superintendent of the carriage
department at Stratford, said—My attention has
been called to carriage 272. The last time it was
in the shop was in December last. It went through
a thorough repair and painting in 1856. [The
witness gave the dates of several repairs and altera.
tions of the carriage.] The other carriages were
firmly built, and the decayed part of 279 no one
could have detected if it had not been knocked to
pieces.
Timothy Wilson, foreman to Mr. Attock,said the
facts which Mr. Attock had stated that he could
corroborate.
Mr. Alan H. Swatman said,—After the line was
made Thompson came to me at least six or seven
times to complain of the difficulty he had in keeping