The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-30 00:00:00

MR, TRAIN'S TRAMWAY.

Last night the third great public meeting with
reference to the proceedings t?ken against Mr.
Train, was held in the Hawkstone Hall, Waterloo-
road.

Shortly after eight o'clock Mr. West was called
to the chair.

The CHAIRMAN having opened the but,iness of
the meeting in terms highly eulogistic of Mr. Train
and his tramway,

Mr. LEE came forward to move the first resolu-
tion, and in doing so he referred to the establish-
ment of omnibuses, which, he said, were a very great
improvement on the modes of conveyance which
were previously in existence, and also to the still
greater improvement which had been effected by
the establishment of railways. An election was
about to take place in Lambeth, and Mr. Frederic
Doulton, who would no &stilt be returned as their
member, was pledged to go into Parliament as a
supporter of tramways. (Cheers.) There would
also be elections throughout the borough for vestry-
men, and no one should be elected who would not
be pledged to give support to the people's tramway.
(Cheers.) A variety of details were entered into by
Mr. Lee for the purpose of showing the number of
advantages which the people would reap from the
establishment of tramways. He concluded by
moving the following resolution:—" That in the
opinion of this meeting the tramway as introduced
by Mr. Train is a great public convenience, and
that it is the duty of the people of all classes to
assist in every legal way in procuring the continu-
ance of the present, and the construction of tram-
ways generally throughout the kingdom, and espe-
cially to give their support only to those candidates
for vestrymen and members of Parliament who are
pledged to support the tramway movement."
Mr.PRITCHARD seconded the resolution, and said,
as a proof of the favourable opinion of the public,
he could state that during the past week so many
as 25,000 people had travelled by the tramway
from Westminster-bridge to Kennington Park.
(Cheers.)
The resolution wos then agreed to almost unani-
mously.
Mr. UTTING moved the second resolution, and said
he lived very near to the tramway, and had there-
fore an ample opportunity of forming a correct
opinion regarding it, and he was able to bear his
testimony to the advantages the tramway conferred
upon the community. (Cheers.) He then proceeded
to point out the great inconvenience of the present
omnibus system, and concluded by moving the
second resolution, which was to the effect that the
meeting concurred in the demonstration which had
been made in favour of the tramway at the large
meetings which had been alteady held an the sub-
ject.
Mr. HENRETTE seconded the resolution, and at
some length advocated the advantages which the
people would derive from the establishment of tram-
ways.

Mr. LEIGHTON spoke in support of the resolu-
tion, which was agreed to.

Mr. AITERSONnoved the next resolution to the
effect that the agitation which had successfully
commenced in favour of tramways should not be
suffered to subside, but should be continued and ex-
tended.

Mr. STREET seconded the resolution, which was
also put and agreed to.
Mr. PRICE moved another resolution, pledging
the meeting to give every support to the establish-
ment of tramways.
Mr. POOLE seconded the resolution, which was
agreed to.
Mr. TRAIN then came forward, and was loudly
cheered,:and proceeded at come length to address the
meeting. In the course of his observations he com-
plained that he had been convicted of a nuisance at
Kingston without his side of the question being
heard by the jury. That, he said, was a mode of
proceeding he could not understand, and of which
he thought he had just reason to complain. (Loud
cheers.)
Mr. Frederic Doulton, the favourite candidate for
Lambeth, and who had promised to attend, here
entered the meeting, and was received with re-
peated rounds of cheering.
Mr. West being obliged to retire from the chair,
Mr. John Williams, one of the churchwardens of
the parish, was called to preside.
Mr. DOULTON then came forward, and was again
loudly cheered. He said the present was the fourth
meeting he had attended that evening, and he then
proceeded to repeat the explanation of his political
principles which he had given at the meetings he
had previously attended. He then spoke strongly
in support of Mr. Train's tramway, said he had the
honour of being one of those who had been convicted
as a vestryman of a nuisance, and added that he
should be ashamed to see Mr. Train left alone to
fight this battle, which he contended must in the
end be successful. Mr. Doulton concluded by say-
ing that he should have the honour of meeting
them again in that Hall on Thursday evening.
(Loud cheers.)
The following resolution was then moved by Mr.
E. DRESSER ROGERS, and seconded by Mr. TRAIN,
and both gentlemen bore the strongest testimony
to the fitness of Mr. Doulton to represent the
borough of Lambeth :
" That this meeting, having heard from Mr.
Frederic Doulton a statement of his political opi-
nions, records its satisfaction therewith, and pledges
itself to use every effort to secure his return at the
present election."
The resolution was agreed to with acclamation,
and Mr. Doulton having expressed his acknow-
ledgments, the meeting separated.
The Hall was densely crowded.

L. TV INTELLIGENCE.-April 29.

BAIL COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before Mr.
Justice Wightman and a Common Jury.)
GATWOOD V. ALEXANDER-SLANDER.

This was an action for slander between two sur-
veyors, the defendant having charged the plaintiff
with stealing his billhook. The defendant pleaded
❑ot guilty.
Mr. Laxton and Mr. John Cooke were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. V,
Williams were counsel for the defendant.
It appeared that in October last the defendant
engaged the plaintiff to do some surveying work at
Kentish-town at 5 guineas per week. The defen-
dant afterwards sent the plaintiff to do some sur-
veying work at Dorking, and as ho would require
the use of a billhook defendant lent him one he had
in his office. After defendant got to Dorking he
informed the defendant that he had been offered 6
guineas per week, and that if he was not paid that
sum he should leave. Defendant declined to accede
to the plaintiff's terms, and he left the work, leav-
ing the borrowed billhook at his own house. The
defendant wrote to the plaintiff complaining of his
conduct, and asking for the return of £5 which the
plaintiff had been paid, but had left the work un-
finished, and said he would expose his conduct to
the profession. At a subsequent interview defen-
dant told the plaintiff that he had stolen his bill-
hook ; that he should treat him as a common thief,
and send a policeman to his house if he did not re-
turn the billhook. Plaintiff said he should not
return it until a policeman had been sent for it. As
the defendant had threatened to expose the plaintiff
to the profession, the latter was bound to bring
this action in vindication of his character.
The defendant said he had been inconvenienced
by the plaintiff's conduct, and he was very angry
with him. He admitted that he had told the plain-
tiff that he should treat him as a thief unless he
returned the billhook. Plaintiff afterwards called
on the defendant, and in the presence of a person he
brought with him, he asked the defendant three
times in a very offensive manner "Am I a thief ? "
Defendant replied each time "If you don't return
the billhook I shall say you ate." The engagement
between them was by the day.
Ultimately the jury returned a verdict for the
defendant.