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

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 the line
would have been perfectly safe. He also expressed an
opinion that if the danger-flag had been exhibited at a die-
tance of 550 yards, the engine-driver ought to have seen it
at a distance of I,oooyards farther off, if he had kept agood
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 ho 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 bad 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 Flom the evidence that if
the signalman had done his duty in going the distance of
a thousand yard; 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
drive; who, he said, as it appeared to him, wore 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-drive; 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 wore 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 bad 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 bad not come
forward and taken steps to institute an inquiry into the
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 time expressed an opinion that some
person of better standing than the prisoner Bongo ought to
be employed in such a responsible duty, and also that some
means should be devised to inform the drivers of trains
when such repairs were going on.
Sentence was deferred.