The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-10 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGPA CR.

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, April 9.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and Special Jury.)
MILEIKIN THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages for inju-
ries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the
bursting of the boiler of one of the defendants' en-
gines on 4th July last, through, as was alleged, the
negligence of their servants. The defendants, by
their pleas, denied they had been guilty of negli-
gence.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Joyce Were counsel
for the plaintiff- Mr. Bovill, Q,C., Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., and Mr. Pollock appeared for the company.
The plaintiff WaS oietgyman, holding a living
at Stoughton, in Sussex, and if appeared that on
the 4th July he started from the ie.;ustoti station in
a second-class carriage, by the Irish mail train, fo‘
the purpose of visiting some friends at Dublin. The
train proceeded safely on its journey until it arrived
a few miles below Rugby, when the boiler of the
engine suddenly exploded, and by the explosion one
of the passengers was killed, and the plaintiff and
several others very seriously injured. These facts
Were admitted by the company, but they contended
that they were not liable, upon the ground that
there had been no negligence on their part in rela-
tion to the boiler that exploded, but that the explo-
sion was an unavoidable acticletit4 for which they
were not responsible. It should tc stated that an
action, arising out of the same accident, Wae tried
in London some time back, the same defence being
set up, and upon that occasion the plaintiff obtained
a verdict, with damages, against the company.
In order to make out the case for the plaintiff, Sir
C. Fox, Captain Tyler, the Government inspector,
and Mr. Dredge and Mr. May, two eminent engi-
neers, were examined. It appeared to be admitted
that the bursting of the boiler was caused by the
corrosion of pipes by constant use, and the evi-
dence of these gentlemen went to show that if the
boiler had been properly examined, its defective
state would have been ascertained, and thus the
accident might have been prevented. Evidence was
also given that, after the accident, upon the exami-
nation of the fractured boiler, the iron presented an
appearance as if the corrosion had been going on for
a very considerable period.
Mr. Bovill, in his address to the jury on behalf
of the defendants, said that the answer he was
instructed to make to the present action was that
they had not been guilty of any negligence what-
ever, but that they had taken every possible pre-
caution to see that the boilers of these engines were
in a fit state to be used, and that the accident that
took place upon this occasion was one which they
had no power to prevent, and that consequently
they were not liable.
A number of witnesses were then examined on
behalf of the company, among whom were Mr.
Gooch, the locomotive superintendent of the Great
Western Railway; Mr. Sturrock, of the Great
Northern; Mr. M'Connell, the former locomotive
superintendent of the London and North Western
Railway, and a gentleman connected with the Mid-
land, whose evidence went to show that it was the
custom upon all these lines only to make a minute
examination of the interior of their engines once in
every six years, and that this had been found by
experience to be- quite sufficient ; and a witness
named Griffiths, who is in the service of the defen-
dants, also proved that he examined the interior of
the engine in question in October, 1857, and at
that time it was perfectly sound and in good condi-
tion, and the allegation that the accident arose
from any neglect on the part of the servants of the
company appeared to be practically negatived.
Mr. Bovill commenced summing up the defendants
case when the jury interposed and intimated that it
was unnecessary for him to do so, as they had al-
ready made up their minds.
Sergeant Parry claimed his right, however, to
reply on behalf of the plaintiff, and he urged upon
the jury that the question they were called upon
to decide by their verdict was not only of im-
portance in relation to the parties themselves,
but that the safety of the public at large was very
deeply involved in the present issue, and he trusted
they would pause before they came to a decision that
the plaintiff was not entitled to receive compensation
for the injury he had suffered upon the occasion.
There could be no doubt that this boiler had burst
in consequence of being in a state of corrosion, and
it appeared to him that if it had undergone a proper
examination, or that if so long a period had not been
allowed to elapse between the examination of the
boilers, its defective state would have been disco-
vered, and thus this accident would have been
avoided, and he therefore contended that upon this
ground the company were guilty of negligence, and
the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The learnel
serjeant, after making a fewmore observations, held
a conference with his client, and he then addressed
the jury, and said he could see they had made up
their minds adversely to him, and he was not vain
enough to suppose that anything he could say would
induce them to come to a contrary opinion. He
should, therefore elect to be nonsuited, and plaintiff
would try the cause again before another jury.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a Special Jury.)
WESTBROOK V. KERRICA.

This was an action of trespass.
Sergeant Shee, Mr. Daly, and Mr. Bridgman were
for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and
Mr. Garth for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, it appeared, was for-
merly in the service of the defendant, who is the
treasurer for the county of Surrey, and had the
management of an establishment for brickmaking
at Dorking, belonging to him. It seemed that
Mr. Kerrich had entered into some arrangement
to put the plaintiff into possession of this property,
upon the understanding that be should find a
partner who would provide a certain amount of
money, and the plaintiff was thereupon alloived
to enter into possession. The agreement, how-
ever, did not appear to have been carried
out, and a dispute arose, and the defendant desired
to regain possession of the property, and the steps
he took with that view led to the present action.
The learned Judge, in the result, put certain
questions to the jury, the answer to one of them,
relating to a plea of leave and license that was upon
the record, being such as to amount to a veraict for
the defendant.

C'ENT.RAL CRIMINAL. COURT-April 9.

FOURTH COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
In the case of the " Queen v. Katharine Barbara
Wilson," charged with bigamy, it will be remem-
bered that an application was made on Monday for
the postponetnEnt of the trial until the June sessions,
upon the ground that the defendant was not pre-
pared with evidence to rebut the charge against
her, but required time to obtain it from Toronto, in
Canada. The Recorder, on this application, said
that the affidavits filed were not sufficiently specific
for him then to,coneede the motion, and ordered it
to be mentioned again to-day.
Mr. Stannard, solicitor for the prosecution, said
that the learned counsel he had instructed were both
engaged on circuit, and in their absence he had to
apply to the Court to bail the defendant, on whose
application an arrangement iod been made to put
offthe trial until June, upon terms. 'Rose terms were
that the prosecution should be furnished with the
names of tho parties at Toronto, from whom infork72a-
Hon was sought in order that the prosecution might I
have an opportunity of testing their evidence. If
that were not so, it would lead to the inconvenience
of asking in Juno for another two months' delay
for that purpose.
The Recorder said the arrangement had not been
made in court, and the terms now sought ought to
have been effected before that arrangement was
closed. He could not now interfere, and the trial
must stand adjourned till the June sessions.
The defendant's bail was then enlarged until the
June sessions.
Thomas Mason, a man of respectable appearance,
was indicted for bigamy.

Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the prosecution; and
Mr. Besley for the defence.
It was proved that the prisoner was married on
the Bth of October, 1843, at the church of St. Ann's
Soho, to a woman of the name of Matilda Garehoen,
a German, who was still living, but an inmate of
the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum. It was further
proved in evidence that on the 21st January, 1855,
he was married to his cousin, Sarah Hands, to whom
he represented that his first wife was dead. With
the second wife he lived two years and alalf, who
had a child by him. Two children were born by
his first wife.

The Recorder told the jury the case was made
out, and that there really could be no defence.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of
guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to twelve
months imprisonment with hard labour.
Thomas George Chapman, 73 years of age, was
indicted for obtaining from Thomas Martin, the
sum of £3 by false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Ribton conducted the prosecution.
The evidence adduced went to show that the pro-
secutor was the proprietor of the Albion Tavern,
Albion-road, Hammersmith, and that the prisoner,
b
who formerly had beeneiauilder, was a customer.
On the 30th of March, 1861, the prisoner came
to the tavern and said he was short of money to pay
his men, and asked the prosecutor to lend him £3,
and he would leave his gold watch 41:1-d chain, which
he wore ostentatiously in his vest pocket, as security.
The prisonb? asserted that the watch and appen-
dages were g
to o:,:1, and worth £2O. On the prosecu-
tor agreeing
obliged
up him with the loan, the
prisoner hastily wrap)., the watch and chain
in a piece of paper' and, 124.1nded the packet to the

prosecutor, who put them in his pocket without any
examination. A few days after it was discovered
that the prisoner had levanted from his abode in
Hammersmith, and on hearing this prosecutor for
the first time looked at the valuables placed as
security in his hands, and then found on inquiry
from a working jeweller that the articles were not
gold, and did not contain one particle of gold, and
were not worth the sum of ss, The prisoner kept
out of the way, and was not found until recently,
when he was given into custody.
The prisoner put in a written defence, which was
full of matter having not the least reference to the
present charge.
The jury unhesitatingly pronounced a verdict of
Guilty.
Mr. Ribton said there were two other indictments
against the prisoner, one for forgery, but looking
at his extreme age, it would be useless to proceed
with them.
The Recorder concurred, and said the only diffi-
culty the Court felt was what to do with the pri-
soner. The sentence ultimately pronounced was
that he be imprisoned nine calendar m.
inths, with
directions that he should be sent to the „.'nfirmary
of the gaol.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-April 9.

B OW- STREET.--THREATENING LORD SHAFTES-
1311RY.—A man of respectable appearance, who said
his name was William Cole, was charged with
threatening the lives of several of the Commis-
sioners of Lunacy, and especially of Lord Shaftes-
bury. The prisoner described himself as of no
occupation, and gave his address at the Crown
coffee-house, Bridge-street, Westminster.
Lord Shaftesbury, who had signed the charge
upon the police-sheet, and Mr. Lutridgo (Commis-
sioner of Lunacy), were accommodated with seats
upon the bench.
Thomas Storer, 0119 of the messengers to the Com-
missioners of Lunacy, was the first witness. He
stated that since Friday last the prisoner had called
daily between 11 and 12 o'clock, at the offices of
the Commissioners, 19, Whitehall-place, and had
employed very violent expressions.
Mr, Henry said the witness must repeat the
words used.
The Witness—He said " I will smash that
Lord Shaftesbury; and I will send all the
commissioners to the hulks if Sir Richard Mayne
does not." He attracted a very large mob by his
conduct and by his singular appearance, wearing a
coloured cloth over his shoulders, and having on a
blue cap. He knocked at the door yesterday and
to-day, asking who were the commissioners present,
and using the same violent conduct and threaten-
ing language.
Defendant asked whether the witness had not
told him that Lord Shaftesbury was not in town,
whereas he was now in court.

The witness had only said he was not at the
office.

The defendant asked if witness did not say" Will
you call again in the course of the day ?"
The witness might have said that. Defendant
asked him who were the commissioners present,
and he replied, " Mr. Lutridge, Mr. Gaskell, and
Mr. Proctor." The defendant then said that the
commissioners had made assertions which they
ought to be ashamed of.
The Defendant—l spoke the truth when I said
so. You yourself have made assertions that you
ought to be ashamed of.
Mr. Henry asked if the witness knew the de-
fendant P
The witness said he had known him for about
two years. Was not aware that he had any occu-
pation, but he used to be at the Society of Arts.
Witness believed thrt he was labouring under aber-
ration of intellect. Inferred that from his conduct.
Had seen hith dressed in a coloured horse-cloth,
coloured cap, and peculiar boots, striding through
the park in imitation of the seven-leagued boots,
and astonishing the people by his /sudden starts
and strange antics.
The defendant said it was not he that laboured
under any delusion, or who had so prevaricated as
to be wholly unworthy of credit. The Earl of Shaf-
tesbury was no more afraid of him than he was of
an infant child. He insisted on his right, and that
of other victims who had unjustly been confined as
lunatics, to the fullest investigation in order to a
reform of the present system. It was lamentable to
reflect on the cases of Mr. Percival, Mr. Boden, and
others, who had been subjected to this sort of treat-
ment. He (the defendant) had petitioned the House
of Commons on the subject, and the matter had
been taken up by Mr. J. A. Roebuck, M.P., " In
my own instance," continued the defendant," " I
was pursued to the Isle of Wight, apprehended at
an hotel by two police constables, handcuffed
and dragged before a poor old, infirm, incom-
petent man named Cook, who came tottering in
to hear the charge of lunacy against me, and with-
out the slightest shadow of grounds, confirmed it.
In that case, as it will be in this, every fallacy was
cleared up by my own witnesses. If the Earl of
Shaftesbury, who really has a regard for truth,
were to act upon his own impressions, he would do
justice ; but he is misled by the statements of others.
The first thing I did en recovering my liberty was
to secure the services of Dr. Holt and another phy-
sician, and with these in my possession I claim the
right to go abroad without the interference of the
police or any other person. I consider that the Earl
of Shaftesbury has paid me a high compliment by
attending here to-day, and now I call upon him to
state what he has to say in justification of these
proceedings."
The Earl of Shaftesbury was most willing to do
so. His lordship was then sworn. He said that
personally he knew very little of the defendant,
whom he had never seen until that day. He was
sitting with other commissioners, when a great dis-
turbance arose in the street. He went to the win-
dow and saw the prisoner fantastically dressed,wear-
ing a blue cap, and with a stick in his hand,which he
was flourishing over his head as he walked up and
down. He (Lord Shaftesbury) said it must be a wan-
dering lunatic. The first witness informed him of
the particulars already stated in evidence. He (Lord
Shaftesbury) then made inquiries, and ascertained
that the defendant had been several times confined
in asylums, and was subject to strange delusions.
In fact he was a dangerous lunatic. He (Lord
Shaftesbury) then went to the Commissioners of
Police and applied for instant assistance, which he
obtained. Upon returning to the offices of the
Lunacy Commissioners soon afterwards the defen-
dant came there again, when he (Lord Shaftesbury)
gave him in custody, and brought him to Bow-street.
The Defendant—You have sworn that I have been
several times in lunatic asylums ?
The Earl of Shaftesbury—That I was informed
so. I know you have been in Fisheiton Asylum,
haviaig been committed from the workhouse, and
that you escaped.
The Defendant—Pray, my lord, are you aware of
the character of that asylum ?
Lord Shaftesbury—Very good. I have not visited
it myself for a long time; but I trust to the reports
of the commissioners.

The Defendant—Do you consider a workhouse as
a lunatic asylum?
Lord Shaftesbury—Certainly not.
The Defendant—How many other asylums have
I been in ?

Lord Shaftesbury—l cannot say.
Mr. R. Lutridge produced the official documents,
showing the date of the defendant's reception into
the Fisherton Asylum, upon medical certificates,
hint; 23, 1868 ; also the notice of his escape on
April 26, 1859. He had also made inquiries at the
workhouse of at. John's, Westminster, to which he
was committed by the magistrates of the district,
and he escaped from ,thence on the same day, the
19th March.

Mr. Henry advised that the defendant should be
taken before the medical officer of St. Martin's, to
be examined by the, medical officer.
The defendant would have great pleasure in going
there, and was much obliged to the magistrate.
He was then removed.

CLERKENWELL.—Mr. John Davey, the
of and the person licensed to keep the
oabniswer
house Tavern, Highbury, was summon
Sunday, the
a complaint against him of having
en his house for
e
30th March last, unlawfully k pp
'e
the sale of liquors before o
appeared for the prisoner, who
Mr. Lewis, jun.,
The case appeared to excineoleek in the afternoon.
excite great interest.
pleadedn not guilty.
Police-constable Gould, 58 N, said—On the 30th
of March last, at 12 o'clock at noon, I visited the
defendant's house, in company with another con-
stable in plain clothes. The door was open and I
walked into the bar. The landlady said " Walk
up, if you please, into the parlour." We went up to
the parlour, and found eight men sitting there.
There were a pot and some glasses standing on the
table before the men, containing malt liquor. We
stopped there about ton minutes, and saw 18 more
men enter the parlour, who were served with liquor.
They appeared to be different parties of friends, and
seemed to come from the fields.
pint of ale, which we
paiedrfoosrs.-exTalreirlel—We ad h
a
defendant's house is at Hornsey, and
I should think it in town. There are fields around
the house. The nearest house is about three
in I I did .not say that I
wmasuatepso' walk from it.
policeman when entered. I do not know
that the next tavern or house is half a mile from
the defendant's, hut I will not swear. We were
sent out on duty that morning, but not to watch the
in particular. I had that mom-
defendant's
enhouse
from
the Hoxton police-station to the
Islington police-station, and then went to the de-
e
de-
fendant's house. I was not tired. We had before
that been to a beer-house and caught the landlord

'as open
in the act of Sunday ;trading. The door w
about three inches. There was no one beinserved
at the bar, and the customers were all in they' p arlour.
Thor „!ooked like gentle-IL-ten who had come ou t for a
stroll. I will not swear that their boots
rnwee'ir.ellinn '';
egt',,,m;.. muddy, or dusty. Everything in,
the house wait
ry quiet and orderly.
Police-COVs3tablo
Maynard, 265 N, confirmed the
k
evidence of thelaSt ,witness.
Mr. Mould (chid eh 'rk)—Were you asked, from
first to last, anything as •to whether you were tra-
vellers? -"here was not a word
Witness—Certainly not,
spoken about travellers.
hatv mornin g from
Cross-examined—l had come
Hoxton, but I cannot sly that a was tired. We
had been to a beerhouse before we visited the de-
fendant's, and had had a glass of a. le there. We
caught the landlord of that house. A ftor that we
went and caught another. We then thcught we
had done a good morning's work.
Mr. Lewis, in reply to the charge, said 'at the:
defendant's house was practically in the country,.
being five or six miles from the General Post--office.
He contended for the defendant that he had a .vight
to serve persons who had travelled two, three , or
four miles. The Act of Parliament was intendetl to
stop the opening of houses for the general sale of
intoxicating liquors, and not to stop travellers frog
t'..-Iking necessary refreshment. No person was in
the • defendant's house who was not a traveler, and
that \tthin the meaning of the Act of Parliament.
The lan,ilord might have been deceived even if he
had asked _{f" .they were travellers. If the magistrate
should be of ak: nion that the onus lay on the inn-
keeperhat the persons were travellers,
O
to prove
an adjournment mutt. 't take place, for he could prove
was the fact. He had the
--11
incontestably that sue
names and addresses of the persons there; and
where did they come frool?—the City, some from
the Gray's-inn-road, and others from a longer dis-
tance. When they had reached th,o defendant's
house they were undoubtedly traveLlerl.l.
Mr. Barker considered that there wa„ 9 sufficient
the pre-
evidence to justify him in convicting upox.'
.rounds.
sent evidence, but declined to say on what h
He should be quite safe in convicting upon t.he evi-
dence before him, and fixed the amount of the tine at
20s, with the altervative of seven days' imprismiLlent•
Mr. Lewis said ho should give the magistrate
notice of appeal withal three days.