The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-27 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MainsToNE, July 26.
(Before Mr. Baron Pigott.)
THE :STAPLEHURST TRAGEDY.—Henry Benge, a man
laving the appearance of a labourer, and Joseph Gallimore,
he former of whom was in custody, and the latter surren-
dered to take his trial, were charged upon a number of
coroner's inquisitions with the manslaughter of divers per-
sons at Staplehurst, on the 9th of June last.
The grand jury ignored the bill that had been preferred
against the prisoner Gallimore, but returned a true bill
against Benge.
Both prisoners were arraigned for the manslaughter of
Hannah Cunliffe.
Serjeant Ballantine was specially retained (with Mr.
Poland) to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the South-
Eastern Company ; Mr. Ribton defended Benge.
Serjeant Ballantine, in opening the case for the prosecu-
tion, said that the two prisoners were charged with having
by negligence caused the death of a number of persons
who were travelling upon the South-Eastern Railway, on
the 6th of June last ; but as the grand jury had ignored
the bill that had been presented to them against the pri-
soner Gallimore, and he considered that they had exercised
a very sound discretion in doing so, he did not propose to
offer any evidence against that prisoner, and the attention
of the jury would be directed solely to the question whe-
ther the offence was established against the other man,
Benge. The case was undoubtedly one of a most painful
character, but he was quite sure that the jury would not
entertain any prejudice that must almost naturally be
created by such a terrible accident as the one that was
the subject of inquiry, and by which so many people lost
their lives, and that they would come to a conclusion
upon the evidence that would be brought before theni
as to whether the prisoner Bongo was guilty of the offence
that was imputed to him. It appeared that ho was in
the service of the company, and that on the day in ques-
tion he was engaged in superintending some repairs at
Staplehurst, and that ho had directed the removal of some of
the rails, and while the line was in this imperfect condition
the express train from Folkestone came up, and in conse-
quence of the state of the line the train toppled over a
bridge into a brook beneath, and a large number of persons
were serious injured, and eight or nine lost their lives.
It was not necessary for him to say that, upon such an ac-
cident occurring, it became the duty of the company to in-
stitute the most rigid inquiry as to the cause of it, and the
result they arrived at was that the melancholy occurrence
was entirely to be attributed to the neglect of the prisoner
Benge. The case, notwithstanding its very serious cha-
racter, appeared to him to bo in reality a very simple one.
They were all aware that there were upon the South Eastern
Railway certain trains every day that were called tidal
trains, and the time at which they started from Folkestone
depended upon the tide and the time of the arrival of the
boat, and the time was changed almost every day. It was
obvious under these circumstances that it was the duty of
every person connected with the railway, or who had any-
thing to do with the repairs of the line, to take care that
thoro should be no such obstruction or impediment at any
period when a train was expected to come up, and to make
himself perfectly well acquainted with the hotirs at which
a train might be expected. With this object a variety of
rules had been framed by the company, giving the fullest
information as to the arrival of the trains ; and it appeared
to him that these rules and regulations were amply suffi-
cient for the purpose of preventing any accident, and that
it was entirely owing to the prisoner having neglected to
conform to these regulations that this melancholy accident
had taken place, and if he should establish this fact to their
satisfaction it would be their duty to convict the prisoner
of the offence of which he was accused. It appeared that
on the day in question the tidal train left Folkestone about
half-past 2 o'clock, and was due at Headcorn, which was
the previous station to Staplehurst, at 3.15 p.m., and it was
due at the spot where the accident happened at 3.19 ; and
it seemed that at this period, owing to the state of the tide,
the hours would be the same on the Bth and 9th of June for
the arrival of the train, but on the following day the train
A book containing
tjnooi the trains was given
do with the working
ttwoh oeevery
unr
so
personof
eelsv arrivedtwho
ihnagduananythingandarrival
of the line, in which not only the days of the month but
the days of the week were distinctly stated. This book
was given to the prisoner Benge, and it was found in his
possession when he was apprehended ; and he believed
there would be no doubt that the accident arose from the
prisoner having carelessly looked at this book, and seeing
that the tidal train had passed on the previous day at 3.15,
he had looked to the following column without looking
at the date or day of the month, and imagined that the
train would not arrive until 5.20, and, acting upon this
impression, he ordered the work to be commenced, and so
caused the melancholy accident. The learned sergeant then
read the rule to which ho had referred, and said that, as an
additional precaution for the safety of the public, this rule
directed that before any of tho rails were regtoved, or the
lino rendered unsafe, it was the duty of the person engaged
in such a work to send a man up the line with a signal
to a distance of 1,000 yards, and that ho should also place
fog or detonating signals, as they were termed, on the way,
at every interval of 250 yards. These were probably all
the precautions that could possibly be taken for the pre-
vention of accident, and ho should show that the prisoner
had neglected to comply with any of them. He did not
think that the slightest doubt would arise as to the cause of
the accident or manner in which it occurred, and also that
it arose from the prisoner having mistaken the hour at
which the tidal train would arrive, and that ho expected it
would not arrive until 5.20. Ho thought it was duo to the
prisoner to state that he did not appear to have made any
attempt at concealment, and that he expressed the utmost
sorrow for the accident ; but when the number of lives that
might be endangered by neglect of this kind was taken into
consideration, and the terrible consequences that must neces-
sarily occur from any neglect of duty on the part of persons
connected with a railway, he was sure the jury would not
allow any feelings of sympathy to operate upon their judg-
ment, and that if they believed that the prisoner was proved
to have neglected those precautions which the rules re-
quired him to exercise, they would perform their duty to
the public by returning a verdict of guilty.
A number of witnesses were then examined for the prose-
cution, and their evidence in the main supported the case as
it had been stated by the learned counsel for the prosecu-

tion. A man named Wills,;;;wasenployed as a signal-
man, stated that he went with a signal up the line to a dis-
tance of 550 yards for the purpose of stopping an approach-
ing train; but in cross-examination he said that ho didnot
do this by the order of the prisoner Benge, but on his own
account, and he also stated that, in his opinion, if the per-
sons in charge of the train had paid attention to his signal,
or had seen it, they might have stopped the train before it
arrived at the spot where the accident happened. It also
appeared that although the prisoner Benge was a sort of
superior officer in the operation that was going on, ho was
only paid a guinea a-week, while those to whom he gave
the orders wero paid 30s. per week. A man named Crombie,
who was engaged as the driver of the engine of the tidal
train, but who had been discharged since the accident, ad-
mitted that he saw the danger-signal, but said that it was
not more than 150 yards from the spot where the accident
happened ; and although he immediately gave a signal
to put on the brakes, it was impossible to bring
the train to a stand-still at that short distance. It was
also elicited that when the train passed the Headcorn sta-
tion the all-right signal was displayed, and they passed
that station at the rate of 40 or 50 miles an hour, but it
appeared that even at that pace if a signal had been given
at a distance of 1,000 yards from the bridge the train might
have been stopped, and the accident prevented. It also
appeared that when the prisoner was asked by Mr. Eborall,
the manager of the railway, how the accident happened he
replied, " Why, to tell you the truth, sir, I mistook thetime
that
hwhene
washadh e b
was
well
awareg a
and looked at the Saturday train instead of the Friday."
The book referred to in the opening by Sergeant Ballantine
was found in his pocket. Evidence was also given that the
prisoner
° nfeonrmegrel that d
in rPlevlpoa sayie:insd agsdtuahtey t signalman,
line.
hav
man with a danger signal a distance of 1,000 yards at any
time
Mr. Ashcroft, tho engineer of the Lao, said that he had
esenatnd
a

been acquainted with the management of railways for 25
years, and that the work that was to be performed on this
occasion could have been completed in an hour and theline
would have been perfectly safe. He also expressed an
opinion that if the danger-flag had been exhibited at a dis-
tance of 550 yards, the engine-driver ought to have seen it
at a distance of 1,000 yards farther off, 'if he bad kept a good
look-out. He also expressed an opinion that at this distance
the train might have been stopped, but he said this was a
question that depended upon the brake power and the state
of the line.

Mr. Ribton, at the close of the case for the prosecution,
submitted that there was no evidence for the jury to show
that any act of the prisoner caused the melancholy accident
that had taken place, and that according to the evidence of
Mr. Ashcroft and some of the other witnesses, the accident
would not have happened if the engine-driver had done
his duty and attended to the signal.
Baron Pigott said it was no answer to a charge like the
present to say that other persons than the one accused had
contributed to the fatal occurrence. The principal point
against the prisoner was that he had ordered the rails to be
taken up at a time when he ought not to have done so, ac-
cording to the time-table that was furnished to him, and
that this was the cause of the melancholy occurrence that
_ _

had taken place.
Mr. Ribton, in the course of a most able address to the
jury, said he could not deny that the railway company by
the regulations they had made, appeared to have done all in
their power to endeavour to protect the public, but the
question was whether the prisoner had been guilty of a
criminal act which had rendered him amenable to a charge
of manslaughter ; and he should contend that all that had
been proved against him was, that he had by an accident
made a mistake and looked at the Saturday's time for the
arrival of the train, instead of the Friday's. He then pro-
ceeded to argue that it was clear from the evidence that if
the signalman had done his duty in going the distance of
a thousand yards, and if he had placed the fog-signals
upon the line, and the engineman had kept a good look-
out, that the accident would not have happened. The
learned counsel went on to say that the prisoner had a good
ground for complaining that he alone had been singled
out as a scapegoat, after the evidence that had been given
with regard to the conduct of the signalman and the engine
driver, who, he said, as it appeared to him, were quite as
much involved in the transaction as the prisoner. He next
proceeded, at considerable length, to argue that the acci-
dent was just as much to be attributed to the neglect of
the signalman and the engine-driver, and to the guards not
having used the whole of the brake power that was at their
disposal, as to any act of the prisoner ; and that, upon all
the facts before the jury, it would be very unjust to make
him alone responsible.

Baron Pigott, in summing up, said that the prisoner was
charged with causing the death of Hannah Cundliff, by
negligence, and the first question was, how that death was
occasioned. She was a traveller in a railway express train,
going at the rate of 50 miles an hour, and the train came
to a spot where a portion of the rails had been removed and
there were no rails to go upon ; and the consequence was
that the train was thrown off the line and the deceased thereby
met her death, and the jury would have to say who was re-
sponsible. The learned counsel for the prisoner had endea-
voured to argue that other persons had contributed to the
event, but he could not at all subscribe to such a doctrine ;
and if it were allowed to prevail in a case like the present,
if the signalman was accused he would say it was not his
fault, but the fault of the person who had caused the rails
to be removed, and each would throw the blame upon the
other. The real question was, who was responsible for the
act which was undoubtedly the cause of the calamity. His
lordship then proceeded to call the attention of the jury to
the facts of the case, and said that it was clearly the duty
of every person who was responsible for such an operation
as the removal of a portion of the iron rails to take care that
he had sufficient time for the completion of the work before
any train came up. The book in which the time for the
arrival of the trains at Staplehurst was, appeared to him
to be as distinct as possible, and under any circumstances
it was the duty of the prisoner who had charge of such
an important operation as the removal of a portion of the
rails not to be satisfied with a cursory glance, but to take
proper care that he read the time distinctly. The learned
judge then observed that the counsel for the prisoner had
attempted to create some prejudice by observations as to
who were the prosecutors ; but such observations, as it

appeared to him, had nothing to do with the case. He
would, however, observe, as a set-off, that it would be a
very lamentable thing indeed, when such a calamity as
this had taken place, if some one or other had not come
forward and taken steps to institute an inquiry into tho
causes of it.

The jury, after deliberating for some time, returned a
verdict of guilty against Bongo, and acquitted Gallimore.
The jury at the same tittle expressed an opinion that some
person of bettor standing than the prisoner Bengo ought to
be employed in such a responsible duty, and also that some
moans should be devised to inform the drivers of trains
when such repairs were going on.
Sentence was deferred.