The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.— Croydon, August 12.

(Before Lord Chief Justice JERVIS and a Special

Jury.)

HITCH V. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover damages through injuries he had sustained
through the alleged negligence of the defendants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr.
Lush were for the plaintiff; Sergeant Channel], Mr.
Bramwell, QC., and Mr. Buvill were counsel for the
company; Mr. Willis watched the case on behalf of
the South-Eastern Railway Company, whose interests
were involved in this inquiry.
The circumstances under which the action was
brought were of rather a peculiar character, inasmuch
as the plaintiff appeared to have sustained the injuries
for which he sought compensation while he was tra-
velling by one of the South-Eastern trains ; and not
by any direct act of the defendants. It appeared that
the accident occurred on the 14th of March, and the
evidence went to show that what is called a " pick-up
train" had started from London between the ordinary
quarter past seven o'clock Croydon train and the
Dover and Hastings train, which started from London
at half-past seven. The Croydon train passed New
Cross, the scene of the accident, with safety, and upon
the arrival of the " pick up" it stopped for the pur-
pose of having some carriages attached to it, and to
effect this it was necessary that it should be
" shunted" off the main line to a siding. At this pe-
riod it was admitted that the Dover train was known
to be nearly due, but it appeared that before the tail
carriages of the " pick-up" train were got off the main
line the expected train came up and ran into them,
causing thereby a violent concussion and serious in-
jury to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was
that the train of the South-Eastern Company had
started in due course, that they were entitled to travel
freely upon the line, and that the accident had been
occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the
defendants in not having the line cleared, and permit-
ting the obstruction to be upon it, which was the oc-
casion of the accident.

Sergeant CHANNELL made an able address to the
jury on behalf of the defendants, and the defence he
attempted to establish was, that the accident had
been occasioned by the negligence of the guards and
drivers of the South-Eastern train, and their inatten-
tion to signals that were made to them to stop before
the accident occurred. Several servants of the Brighton
Company were called as witnesses, but their evidence
was very far from making out the case as suggested
by the Learned Sergeant; for although it appeared
that two green flags had been exhibited as signals, it
was admitted that they only indicated caution to the
coming train, and that the red flag, which was an in-
dication of danger, was not shown at all ; and one of
the witnesses admitted that he was not even aware
that the " pick-up" train was to be " shunted" in the
way described, and that if he had, he should certainly
have exhibited the " danger" signal. It was like-
wise elicited i❑ the course of cross-examination that a
clock at the station which regulated the movements
of a large number of trains was four minutes too
slow, and the switchman said, in answer to questions
put to him by Mr. Chambers, that the clock was in
his charge, and that he wound it up, but he at the
same time stated that he had no correct means of
knowing whether it kept good time or not; it being
at the same time proved in evidence that the process
of " shunting" occupied from seven to ten minutes ;
that a great number of trains were continually pass-
ing ; and that every minute was occasionally of the
utmost importance as regarded the safety of the public
travelling upon the railway.

Mr. 6IAI\IBERS, in a bi:ief reply, urged that the
evidence which had been adduced tor the defendants
really tended to strengthen the case for the plaintiff.
It was no part of his case to enter into any supposed
opposition between the Dover and the Brighton Rail-
way Companies; but he could not help observing that
there was some ground for supposing that this unfor-
tunate accident bad arisen in consequence of an at-
tempt to obstruct the passage of the train of the Dover
Company to Hastings, that route being in opposition
to the Brighton Railway Company, and he submitted
that, at all events, the accident was clearly proved to
have been caused by the want of proper signals and
the false clock.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case with
his usual care and clearness. He said that before the
jury could return a verdict against the defendants
they must be satisfied that the acaident had arisen
solely through the negligence of their servants ; and
if they considered that an equal portion of blame at-
tached to the servants of the South-Eastern Com-
pany, in that case the defendants were entitled to a
verdict. His Lordship then called the attention of
the jury to the facts of the case, and said that he
could not help expressing his strong disapprobation at
the manner in which the clock, upon the accuracy of
which the lives of so many people necessarily de-
pended, was taken charge of, and that it should not
give the time correctly, when almost every minute was
of importance in performing the necessary operations
at the station.

The jury after deliberating for about a quarter of
an hour returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
1,5001.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Bridgewater, Aug. 11.
(Before Lord CAMPBELL.)
William Sibley was indicted for the manslaughter
of Philip Hooyer by striking him on the head with
a stick and giving him several mortal wounds, of
which he died.

Mr. Allen conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Edwards defended the prisoner.
It appeared that on the 29th of May the deceased
and the prisoner and a number of other persons were
assembled at the Beambridge Inn to hold a club
meeting. They then left for the purpose of proceed-
ing to their homes. As soon as they were out of the
door the deceased commenced a row with a man
named Drew. Some of the other men joined in it.
They armed themselves with sticks. During the
row the prisoner Sibley struck the deceased a blow
on the head with a stick. This blow felled him to
the ground, and the prisoner continued to beat him
when he was down. Some of the men interfered and
took the deceased into the inn, where in a few mi-
nutes be expired. The prisoner was at once secured
and a surgeon was sent for. It was admitted that
the deceased was of a very quarrelsome disposition,
intoxicated.
The that many of the men were
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was
sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, with
hard labour.

William Boucher was indicted for shooting at John
Birley with a loaded pistol, with intent to maim him,
at Bath, on the 30th of July.
Mr. Lloyd and Mr. W. T. Saunders were counsel
for the prosecution; and Mr. Stone and Mr. Allen
defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was a confidential
clerk and cashier in the employ of Mr. Tucker, a
linendraper at Bath, and Birley was in the service of
Messrs. Jones and Bensley, also linendrapers, and
both these parties had back premises looking out on
Parsonage-lane. It would seem there had been a
good deal of " larking" going on between the young
men of both these establishments, and they had been
in the habit of throwing water over each other as they
passed along the lane. On Friday, the 25th of July,
this sport had been going on, and the prisoner being
of a sporting turn of mind, kept pistols, and powder
and shot and caps, and he thought by firing off a
pistol he should put an end to this kind of thing, and
he did not consider that by putting a few shot into
the pistol he should do any one any harm ; and at
about half-past eleven o'clock that night the prisoner
fired the pistol from the window of the room in which
he slept, and a shot struck Birley on the head. It
was not suggested that the prisoner had any felonious
intent.

Lord CAMPBELL said that there was every reason to
believe that the pistol was fired merely to frighten,
and the offence amounted merely to an assault.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of a common
assault.

Lord CAMPBELL said firearms were not to be played
with, and therefore the prisoner must be imprisoned
for one month.

John Jenkins, a decent-looking boy, was indicted
for cutting and wounding James rimier, with in-
tent, &c.

Mr. Hodges prosecuted, Mr. Stone defended.
It appeared that Hawler was a labourer residing at
Nempnett. On the 11th of April he was in the belfry.
The prisoner came in and kept poking Homier with a
stick. Hawler told him to be quiet, but as he did not de-
sist he made towards the prisoner, who then ran away.
After that there was a funeral, and two little children
wore looking in the grave upon the coffin, and the
prisoner threw stones at them. Hawler told him to
he quiet, and then the prisoner threw a stone at him.
Hawler followed him, and struck him on the back
with his hat. The prisoner then put his hand in his
pocket and pulled out a knife and opened it, and said,
" If you don't mind what you are about I'll put this
knife into you." Homier said, " Young man, you
had better put that knife in your pocket again," and
put out his left arm to catch him to make him put
the knife in his pocket, and the prisoner dug the knife
into Lis hand and pulled it across it. Hawler could
not do anything for Hveu weeks, and cann9t use his