The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-27 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGEACE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LENvEs, March 26.
Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a Common Jury.

CRISP V. CORDREY.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages
for the unlawful detention of certain articles of
wearing apparel, and a gold watch belonging to the
plaintiff, by the defendant.
Mr. B. Rigby appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., Sergeant Ballantine, and Mr.
Crawfurd, for the defendant.
This was rather a curious ease. The plaintiff in
the action was a widow, and the defendant was
stated to he a gentleman of considerable property
residing in: this county. The parties became
acquainted in the commencement of the present
year, and were on very intimate terms, but
in consequence of something that came to the
knowledge of the defendant, on the 11th of February
he proceeded to the house of the mother of the
plaintiff, and forcibly took possession of certain
articles belonging to her. For this trespass the
mother brought an action against the defendant,
who paid 40s. into court. The cause was tried on
Tuesday, and the jury gave a verdict for the de-
fendant. The object of the present action was to
recover the value of the property that was removed
upon the occasion.
Mrs. Amelia Crisp, a very 'good-looking young
woman, deposed that she was a widow, and lived
with her mother in Warwick-street, Pimlico. She
knew the defendant, and on the 11th of February
she accompanied him and her mother to the Lyceum
Theatre. During the performance the defendant
went to her mother's residence and took away a
portmanteau, two silk dresses, a gold watch and
chain, and some articles of under clothing, and a
scarlet Garibaldi jacket. (A laugh.) The portman-
teau was worth three guineas ; the two silk dresses,
sixteen guineas; and she considered the watch and
chain to be worth fifteen guineas. The defendant
still had possession of all those articles.
Cross-examined—She did not know exactly what
the watch and chain were worth, but Mr. Cordrey
gave them to her, and she knew he was a rich man,
and therefore thought that he would not give her a
less price than she had mentionea for such articles.
(A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins—l believe you have brought an
action against the defendant for " wounded feel-
ings ?"
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Hawkins—Were you very unhappy then ?
Witness—l was. (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—l believe ho was your suitor, was
he not ? Pray, how long did the courtship last ?
Witness—l cannot say.
Mr. Hawkins—Did it not begin in January and
end in February ?
Witness—l suppose it was about that time.
Mr. Hawkins—And then, I believe, he married
some one else (mentioning a name).
Witness—She died, you know ; and he could not
marry a dead woman. (A roar of laughter.)
The witness further stated-- that the defendant
bought her the portmanteau, and gave three gui-
neas for it, and it was bought for the wedding tour.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins asked the witness whether the writ
in the present action was not served upon the de-
fendant on Valentine's day ?
She replied she believed it was. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—A very pretty valentine to send
to a man ! (Renewed laughter.) He then asked
the witness whether she was not aware that when
engagements of this kind were broken off, it was
customary for the lady to return the gentleman's
presents ?
She replied that this might be so, but in the pre-
sent case he took them by force. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins—Well, suppose he gives them to
you back again P
Witness—Well, I would rather have the money.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins made a very humorous speech in
behalf of the defendant, and said that this was the
first time he had ever been called upon to tax a
milliner's bill, which was all he really had to do,
for the defendant admitted having taken the arti-
cles, and the only question was what was their
value. The defendant had no doubt acted foolishly,
but the thoughts of his former love induced him to
desire to keep these artioles in remembrance of the
object of his affection - and it was not until, on
Valentine's day, of all others in the year, he was
served with no leas than four valentines of the de-
scription spoken to, all arising out of this one trans-
action, that he found what a very unpleasant posi-
tion he had placed himself in. (A laugh.)
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £4l, that being the full value claimed for
the property.
THE ACCIDENT AT THE CLAYTON TUNNEL.

The
,actions against the London and Brighton
Railway Company, to recover compensation for
injuries sustained by the fatal collision that took
place in the Clayton Tunnel on the 25th of August
last, and by the administrators of persons who were
killed upon the occasion, were specially fixed to be
taken this morning, and a special jury was empanel-
led for the purpose. Before the proceedings com-
menced an inquiry was made whether any of the
gentlemen who had been called to serve on the jury
was a holder of shares in the company, and one of
them stated that he was, and he was asked to leave
the box, and another juryman was called in his
place.
There were fifteen actions on the cause list, all of
which had reference to the accident in question. It
was stated that the company had given compensa-
tion in no less than two hundred cases of injury,
and they were willing to take the same course in
every instance where injury had been sustained,
and considerable sums were paid into court in all
the actions set down for trial, and it was understood
that no claims were resisted except where it was
considered they were exorbitant, or there were
grounds for believing that the extent of the injuries
sustained had been very much exaggerated.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., the Hon. G. Denman, Q.C., and
Mr. Hannen were instructed in all the cases on
behalf of the company. Tho following counsel were
retained on behalf of the several plaintiffs :—Ser-
geant Shee, Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Lush,
QC., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Sergeant Parry, Mr.
Thompson Chitty, Mr. Garth, Mr. Honyman, Mr.
Russell, Mr. Freeman, and Mr. Reed.
The first case that was taken was that of Sways-
land and wife joint , who brought a action to recover
damages for the injuries they had sustained upon
the occasion in question. The husband claimed
£3,000 for himself and X5OO for his wife, and the
defendants paid £7OO into court in full discharge of
the damages they had both sustained. The com-
pany admitted their liability, and the only ques-
tion to be disposed of, therefore, was the amount of
damages the plaintiffs were entitled to.
Mr. Lush, who (with Mr. Russell and Mr. T.
Chitty) appeared for the plaintiffs, said that as the
lamentable accident that was the cause of this in-
quiry was now matter of history, and the circum-
stances connected
with it hack, been brought so fully
before the public, it would only be necessary for
• him to allude to then very briefly on yhe pregent

occasion. it appeared that on Sunday, the 2tith of!
August last, three trains started from the Brighton
station for London, one the Portsmouth train which
way due at 8rig10,..,n about 8 o'clock, a second an
excurzion train which Wat 4 ts, siart about a quarter
past 8, and the regular third class train which
usually started about half-past 8. The Portsmouth
train on this morning was very late, and this no
doubt delayed the ethers, and eventually they all
stated from Brighton for their place of destination
within a very short period of each other, and they
all arrived in safety at the Clayton Tunnel, which
was the second tunnel on the road to London., It

was a regulation of the company that two trains
should not be in a tunnel at the same time, and.the

signal-men at each end of this tunnel were required
to signal when a train had passed through before
another train was allowed to enter, and the acci-
dent no doubt arose from some unfortunate mis-
understanding with regard to the signals, or from
the machinery being imperfect. As he had stated,
the Portsmouth train passed into the tunnel, and
while it was there the excursion train came up, and
from some cause or other it was not stopped, but
proceeded into the tunnel. The signal-men,
clanger,
how-
ever, had succeeded in giving a signal of
the effect of which was that the driver of the ex-
cursion train stopped it, and was proceeding slowly
to back out of the tunnel. While he was doing
so the third train came up at full speed, and
the consequence was one of the most dreadful
collisions that, he believed, had ever occurred upon
this or any other railway, the result being a most
disastrous loss of life, and the infliction of the most
dreadful injuries upon a large number of the pas-
sengers. The plaintiff and his wife, who were pas-
sengers in a 3d-class carriage by the excursion train,
weie thrown backwards and forwards in the carriage
until they became insensible, and although no bones
were broken the injuries they received were of the
most serious character, and he believed that the
plaintiff would never entirely recover from those in-
juries. The defendants had thought fit to pay a sum
of £7OO into court as a compensation to the plaintiff
and his wife for the injuries which they admitted
they had sustained through the negligence of their
own servants; but he said he must confess that he
was utterly at a loss to understand upon what prin-
ciple this amount of compensation was arrived at,
and he believed that when the jury had heard the
case they would be of opinion that this sum was
utterly inadequate compensation for the damage
and injury the plaintiffs had sustained.
The case for the plaintiff was then gone into. It
appeared that he had for 27 years carried on the
business of a naturalist, and stuffer of birds and ani-
mals, at Brighton, and was considered very skilful
in his occupation, and had been employed by seve-
ral of the nobility, and his name had been very fa-
vourably mentioned in works having reference to
the subject. It was represented that ever since the
accident the plaintiff had been prevented from per-
forming his business, which it was stated brought
him in a net revenue of £4OO per annum, and that
there were symptoms of his brain having sustained
a shock, and also that his whole nervous system
was affected, and it was very doubtful whether he
would ever again be able to follow his occupation
as he did before. Dr, Burrows, a medical gen-
tleman of Brighton, Dr. Adams, one of the sur-
geons of the London Hospital, 1)r. Travers, and
Dr. Ormerod gave evidence as to the condition
of the plaintiff in conformity with the above
statement, and one of these gentlemen said
that at times there was so much heat at the
back of the plaintiff's head that it was plainly
perceptible to the hand when held at some distance,
as though it was near a fire, and according to the
evidence of the plaintiff, this heat was accompanied
by intense pain. The wife of the plaintiff did not
appear to have received injuries of so material a
character, but it was proved that she sustained a
very severe blow on the knee pan, which prevented
her from putting her foot to the ground for several
weeks, and that she also sustained a greal deal of
pain and inconvenience in consequence of this un-
fortunate accident.
Mr. Bovill, in the course of a most able speech to
the jury on behalf of the company, said this was the
first time the gentlemen of the county had been
troubled 'with an inquiry arising out of this unfor-
tunate accident ; and they had observed that the
directors had not put any of the parties to unneces-
sary expense and inconvenience by denying their
liability, but had admitted that they were liable for
the negligence of their servants, and had expressed
their readiness to give fair and reasonable compen-
sation to every person who had really been injured
by this unfortunate affair, as they already had done
in a great number of cases. He then said it was al-
most unnecessary for him to remind the jury that,
in every case where injury was sustained by a rail-
way accident, when a claim was made for compen-
sation, the amount of the injury was always very
much exaggerated, and it became the duty of the
directors to take care that exorbitant sums were not
paid when the parties had not received injuries to
anything like the extent that were represented, and
he contended that in the present case the sum of
£7OO was ample for the damage that had been done,
as in all probability in the course of a few months
plaintiff and his wife would be perfectly recovered.
Three medical gentlemen were examined as wit-
nesses for the company, and theystated their opinion
to be that neither the plaintiff or his wife had sus-
tained permanent injury, and that they would ulti-
mately entirely. recover.
Mr. Justice Wightman having summed up, the
jury retired to deliberate upon their verdict.
In about an hour they returned into court and
gave a verdict for £l,OOO, being £3OO in addition
to the sum paid into court.
Another case of the same description was then
proceeded with.
Serjeant Shee and Mr. B. Rigby appeared for
the plaintiff. The defendants paid £4OO into court.
It appeared in this case that the plaintiff was a
young man, a pianoforte tuner, and he stated his
earnings to be £2 10s. per week in winter, and £2
ss. in summer, besides which he earned money
privately by tuning instruments. He alleged that
by the collision he received injuries to the head,
which affected his sight, and he also at times
suffered severe pain in the back. In addition to
this he stated that upon some occasions ho was
seized with giddiness, and would almost fall down
insensible while walking in the street.
The defence in this case was pretty much the
same as in the last, and the cause was not brought
to a conclusion until a late hour. It was under-
stood that several of the other actions had been
settled.