The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESD V/ EVENING MAY 13, 1862,

great traveller, by means of which the nave was
built. Both these are made to scale, and even in
their miniature proportions give the visitor a fair
idea of the difficulties that had to be overcome in
the erection of the building, especially in the two
huge domes. What with these and other, fresh
objects, and the exertions which all exhibitors,
English and foreign, have recently made, the whole
building may now be said in a very forward state
of completeness, and a few days more will see it
finally arranged.

riages two, were so completely shattered that
nothing was left but the stays of the frames; the
third carriage had its first compartment smashed in,
but strange to say with regard to the break there
was but little damage externally, while the
internal fittings were rent into ribbons, and there-
fore the escape .of Benham and Rolfe, the two
guards who were in the van, must be
considered as nothing short of a miracle. It ap-
pears from the state of the line that the second car-
riage must have loft the metals some distance before
the train went over, and that the first course down
the embankment was about 30 yards below where
the large brick garden wall was encountered and
nearly demolished.

L 4 W INTBLLIG:ENCE.—May 12.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Co-
burn, and aud Justices Crompton, Bl:2.c:;.burn, and
Mellor.)
THE QUEEN V. TRAIN AND ANOTHER.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., with whom were Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Joyce, prayed the judg-
ment of the Court against Mr. Train and Mr. Hath-
away, who had been convicted of a nuisance in lay-
ing down the tramway in the Westminster-road.
Mr. Bevil', Q.C., with whom were Mr. Knapp
and Mr. Garth, appeared on behalf of the defend-
ants, and said the case stood in a peculiar position.
There was a rule pending relative to the liability of
certain vestrymen of Lambeth, who were indicted
with the present defendants. If the Court granted
a new trial in that case, the two defendants then
present were equally entitled to that benefit, and he
submitted that the Court ought not to pass sentence
on those two defendants until after the rule was
disposed of. There was no precedent for the course
proposed by the prosecution.
The Lord Chief Justice said that in the event of
the Court making the rule absolute for a new trial
in the case of the vestrymen, would the prosecution
undertake to pledge themselves to enter a none
prosequi.

- Mr. Bovill said it was a very important matter.
There was another indictment pending with regard
to the Birkenhead tramway, in which similar points
would arise, and there was also the case of the elec-
tric telegraph posts involving a like question. The
matter was now before Parliament. There could be
no doubt it was a mode of travelling beneficial to
the riding public with regard to ease, cheapness, and
a saving of time.
The Lord Chief Justice said that might be, but if
it was useful to some it might be undoubtedly a
grievous nuisance to others.

Mr. Bovill reminded their lordships that there
was no verdict in fact against the other defendants.
The Lord Chief Justice asked what was the state
of the nuisance. Was it continuing ?
Mr. Chambers said it was, and that accidents
were daily occurring. He suggested that the ver-
dict should be suspended as against the other de-
fendants. There was no desire to press for a heavy
fine against Mr. Train, but only to get the tramway
taken up. They would be satisfied if Mr. Train
would enter intoa rule of court to remove the tram-
way between this and the next term, and pay all
the costs in the prosecution.
The Lord Chief Justice said the difficulty was in
dealing with Mr. Train whilst there was no verdict
entered as against the other defendants, and the rule
for a new trial was pending.
Mr. Chambers again contended that it was com-
petent for the Court to proceed under the circum-
stances to pass judgment on the two defendants
before the Court.

Mr. Justice Crompton said that under a writ of
prostration the prosecution could not get the costs.
Mr. Chambers said they might be got from the
Treasury if the Court would intimate that they in-
tended to pass such a fine upon Mr. Train as would
cover them. If Mr. Train would accept the terms
offered, he (Mr. Chambers) was willing to abandon
the proceedings against the vestrymen.
Mr. Justice Crompton said it appeared to him to
merge into a question of costs.
Mr. Chambers said he understood that in addi-
tion to the bond given by Mr. Train on permission
given to him to lay down the tramway, he had de-
posited £l,OOO for the vestrymen's costs.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., who watched the proceedings for
the vestry, said that was for reinstating the road.
After some further discussion between the bench
and the learned counsel,
The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion
that the Court ought not to pronounce judgment in
the present state of the case—it was a matter of
discretion for the Court, and he thought they ought
to hesitate before making a precedent. Some of
the defendants were in this position, that it rested
for the Court to say whether the verdict of guilty,
or not guilty, should be entered against them. It
would, therefore, be very inconvenient that the
Court should proceed to pass judgment against the
two defendants then before them, more especially
as in the event of a new trial being granted
on the part of the vestrymen the defen-
dants Train and Hathaway would be entitled to
participate in it. The power, however, was in the
hands of the prosecution by entering a nolle pro-
sequi with reference to the vestrymen, but they de-
clined to do so, as was obvious—the question of
costs intervening. The Court declined to make the
precedent asked for, and therefore unless the prose-
cution entered a nolle prosequi against the other
defendants this case must stand over till the disposal
of the rule.

Mr. Justice Crompton said he thought the Court
might have proceeded to pass sentence on the de-
fendants, but he thought it better not to do so, con-
sidering the difficulties that might arise in conse-
quence. _ _

The other learned judges concurred.
Application refused.

Tic; Lord Chief Justice said that in the event of
the case coming again before them, and they were
called upon to pronounce judgment, that if it was
brought to their knowledge that the nuisance had
not been abated, and accidents had occurred in the
interval, the Court would take it into their serious
consideration with reference to the sentence to be
imposed. What had passed was to be without pre-
judice in any application to be made next term to
take the rule out of the new trial paper for imme-
diate discussion.