The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-10 00:00:00

,APRIL, 1.0, 1862.

ASSIZE INTELLIGET CE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, April 9.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and Special Jury.)
MILEIRIN V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages for inju-
ries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the
bursting of the boiler of one of the defendants' en-
gines on 4th July last, through, as was alleged, the
negligence of their servants. The defendants, by
their pleas, denied they had been guilty of negli-
gence.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Joyce were counsel
for the plaintiff- -Mr. Bovill, Q,C., Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., and Mr. Pollock appeared for the company.
The plaintiff was a clergyman, holding a living
at Stoughton, in Sussex, and it appeared that on
the 4th July he started from the Euston station in
a second-class carriage, by the Irish mail train, for
the purpose of visiting some friends at Dublin. The
train proceeded safely on its journey until it arrived
a few miles below Rugby, when the boiler of the
engine suddenly exploded, and by the explosion one
of the passengers was killed, and the plaintiff and
several others very seriously injured. These facts
were admitted by the company, but they contended
that they were not liable, upon the ground that
there had been no negligence on their part in rela-
tion to the boiler that exploded, but that the explo-
sion was an unavoidable accident, for which they
were not responsible. It should be stated that an
action, arising out of the same accident, was tried
in London some time back, the same defence being
set up, and upon that occasion the plaintiff obtained
a verdict, with damages, against the company.
In order to make out the case for the plaintiff, Sir
C. Fox, Captain Tyler, the Government inspector,
and Mr. Dredge and Mr. May, two eminent engi-
neers, were examined. It appeared to be admitted
that the bursting of the boiler was caused by the
corrosion of pipes by constant use, and the evi-
dence of these gentlemen went to show that if the
boiler had been properly examined, its defective
state would have been ascertained, and thus the
accident might have been prevented. Evidence was
also given that, after the accident, upon the exami-
nation of the fractured boiler, the iron presented an
appearance as if the corrosion had been going on for
a very considerable period.
Mr. Bovill, in his address to the jury on behalf
of the defendants, said that the answer he was
instructed to make to the present action was that
they had not been guilty of any negligence what-
ever, but that they had taken every possible pre-
caution to see that the boilers of these engines were
in a fit state to be used, and that the accident that
took place upon this occasion was one which they
had no power to prevent, and that consequently
they were not liable.

A. nnmber of witnesses were then examined on
behalf of the company, among whom were Mr.
Gooch, the locomotive superintendent of the Great
Western Railway ; Mr. Sturrock, of the Great
Northern; Mr. M'Connell, the former locomotive
superintendent of the London and North Western
Railway, and a gentleman connected with the Mid-
land, whose evidence went to show that it was the
custom upon all these lines only to make a minute
examination of the interior of their engines once in
every six years, and that this had been found by
experience to be quite sufficient ; and a witness
named Griffiths, who is in the service of the defen-
dants, also proved that he examined the interior of
the engine in question in October, 1857, and at
that time it was perfectly sound and in good condi-
tion, and the allegation that the accident arose
from any neglect on the part of the servants of the
company appeared to be practically negatived.
Mr. Bovill commenced summing up the defendants
case when the jury interposed and intimated that it
was unnecessary for him to do so, as they had al-
ready made up their minds.
Sergeant Parry claimed his right, however, to
reply on behalf of the plaintiff, and he urged upon
the jury that the question they were called upon
to decide by their verdict was not only of im-
portance in relation to the parties themselves,
but that the safety of the public at large was very
deeply involved in the present issue, and he trusted
they would pause before they came to a decision that
the plaintiff was not entitled to receive compensation
for the injury he had suffered upon the occasion.
There could be no doubt that this boiler had burst
in consequence of being in a state of corrosion, and
it appeared to him that if it had undergone a proper
examination, or that if so long a period had not been
allowed to elapse between the examination of the
boilers, its defective state would have been disco-
vered, and thus this accident would have been
avoided, and he therefore contended that upon this
ground the company were guilty of negligence, and
the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The learnel
serjeant, after making a few moz e observations, held
a conference with his client, and he then addressed
the jury, and said he could see they had made up
their minds adversely to him, and he was not vain
enough to suppose that anything he could say would
induce them to come to a contrary opinion. He
should, therefore elect to be nonsuited, and plaintiff
would try the cause again before another jury.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a Special Jury.)