The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-18 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-(TBIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell and a Special Jury.)
CHALLIS V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action brought by Mr. Alderman Challis,
late Lord Mayor of London, against the Great Northern
Railway Company, to obtain compensation for personal
'njuries and pecuniary losses sustained by the plaintiff
through an accident while travelling on the company's
line.

The Attorney-General and Mr. Hawkins appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Wordsworth
for the defendants.

The defendants had paid 301. into court by way of
compensation.

Sir Charles Trevelyan, assistant secretary to the Trea-
sury, was examined by the Attorney-General, and stated
that in the latter end of August last he left London by
the five o'clock p.m. express train of the Great Northern
Railway Co.-npany. In the same carriage with witness
were the plaintiff and Sir James Duke. When the train
reached Hornsey there was a collision with a coal train,
the express train at the time going at full express
speed. When witness recovered from the shock he
saw Alderman Challis, the plaintiff, who sat oppo-
site to him, had got a deep cut across his nose,
and was otherwise very much injured, a consider•
able quantity of blood being on the floor of the carriage,
arid on some newspapers that they had been readini
Witness assisted Alderman Challis out of the carriage to
a tavern close by.

Alderman Challis was next examined by the Attorney-
General, and said ono or two medical men attended him at
the tavern alluded to, and attempted to stop the bleed-
ing from his face ; ho s•iffered very much, and remained
at the tavern for two or three hours. He even now con-
tinued to feel great inconvenience, and could not suffer
any excitement, and was obliged up to the present time
to abstain from attending to his private business. Shortly
after the accident a gentleman in the service of the rail-
way company called upon him, and in the course of con-
versation, having asked him what expense he had been
put to, and being told by him (plaintiff) that the mere
travelling expenses were 231., the gentleman said he
would make that right, and soon after the company
sent him a cheque for 141. He (plaintiff) had given
his servant 231. to pay the expenses of the journey to
Sheffield and back. Plaintiff was at that time Lord
Mayor of London, and having been invited to the Cut-
ler's Feast at Sheffield, he was going down there, with
his state carriage, horses, and servants. He had paid,
besides, 101. or 151. fir medical attendance. He bad an
entire suit of clothes spoiled by the accident, and lost
his hat. Altogether he was 451. or 501. out of pocket
by the accident.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watson—Dr. Child attended
him about seven or eight days after the accident.
He (plaintiff) attended to his magisterial duties for a
few days after the accident, hut he was obliged to desist
from doirvf so ; he resumed those duties in about three
weeks afterwards.

Dr. Miller, of Enf►eld, the plaintiff's usual medical
attendant, and Dr. Jefferson, who had been called in
the day after the accident, described the effect of the
accident on plaintiff to be a very serious shock to hie
systein, and an injury to his health generally, ever since
it occurred.

Mr. Watson having addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendants, pleading the inevitable risks men must
make up their minds to encounter while travelling by
express trains at a velocity of 50 miles an hour.
Lord Campbell briefly sum►wed up the case. He said
the learned gentleman who had conducted the case for
the defendants, admitted the plaintiff had incurred a loss
of 451. by the accident ; but surely the jury would not
—in point of law they ought not—confine the damages
to the mere pecuniary loss ; they should consider the
anguish endured by the plaintiff and the shock sus-
tained by his constitution, which if they were
satisfied with the evidence, entitled him to a
reasonable compensation at their hands, though they
should take care at the same time that it should not be
excessive.

The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found a
verdict for the plaintiff; damages 2001. (including the
301. paid into court by the defendants.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
COOPS V. ARNOLD.
The Lord Chancellor was occupied the whole of the
day with hearing the further arguments in this part
heard appeal.
Mr. Wigram. Q.C., was addrdssing the Court when
our repurter left.

VICE-CHANCERY.
(Before Vice Chancellor Sir R. Kin dersley.)
GILLINGHAM V. BAKER.
This part heard case was resumed this morning, and
had not concluded at two o'olock. The arguments do
not call for a report, as they are only interesting to the
parties immediately concerned.

DISCOVERY OF THE REMAINS OF SIR

JOHN FRANKLIN.

A telegraphic despatch from Albany, under date Dec.
3, contains the following :
"7/se Lake Superior Mining News of the 27th ult.
says :—' We learn by private letters that the bodies of
Sir John Franklin and his men have been found by Dr.
Kane's party, completely frozen, and in a perfect state
of preservation.' It adds—' From the authority whence
we have gained the information, we have the right to
believe it as perfectly true.'"