The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-19 00:00:00

FOWLES V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. Stone were coun-
sel for the plaintiff; Mr. Ball and Mr. Smith for the
defendants.

This was an action brought against the Great
Western Company as common carriers. The decla-
ration alleged that the defendants, as such common
carriers, received a certain box, containing a variety
of articles, to be conveyed from Bristol to Brompton,
and that they did not use proper care and diligence
in the conveyance of the same, but on the contrary,
let the box fall, by which means the articles in the
said box were broken and darnsgeti, and the plaintiff
in consequence sustained great damage, and was un-
able to carry on his busieeis and calling as a lecturer
on natural philosophy. The defendants pleaded ten
pleas—amongst others, that the packages contained
glass to a greater amount than 101.; also that the in-
jury occurred owing to the improper manner in which
the box was packed; and also that the box contained
articles which ought not to have been packed toge-
ther. This was en action brought by the plaintiff,
who was in the habit of travelling about the
country lecturing on natural philosophy, and
the box in question contained various articles
of glass and different apparatus which he used fOr
experiments with which to illustrate his lectures. On
the Ist of May last, five packages were delivered at
the Great Western Railway station at Bristol, directed
to the plaintiff at 10, Montpelier row, Brompton,
marked " glass, with care," and 10s. 3d. paid for the
carriage thereof. On the 31 of May, when the goods
were being delivered at 13rompton, the carman let one
of the packages fall, and the artices which it con-
tained were thereby broken and injured. The plain-
tiff made many applications to the company, and
offered to take 151. for the damage, and 10 guineas
for the loss he should sustain in not being able to
perform his engagements to lecture in various parts of
the country which had been advertised. Upon an
occasion of his calling at Paddington, he saw a Mr.
Drew, an official of the railway ; being rather deaf,
the plaintiff had taken a friend with him, but Mr.
Drew ordered him out of the room.

Mr. BALL, for the defendants, took many technical
objections to the plaintiff's right to recover, which
were overruled by Lord Campbell. The defence set
up was that the packages were safe when delivered to
the carrier in London ; and the carman was called,
who swore that he delivered the packages all safe at
Brompton. It was stated by Mr. Drew, the official
of the company, that he had offered the plaintiff 51.
compensation, but the plaintiff demanded such a sum
that he "pooh, poobed it." He denied, on cross-
examination, that he had ordered the plaintiff's friend
out of the room, but admitted that he had " requested"
him to leave.

Lord CAMPBELL, in summing up, expressed regret
that the small sum originally asked for had not been
accorded by this great company to the plaintiff for
the injury that his goods had undoubtedly received.
As a judge, he felt it his duty to express his opinion
of the conduct of the official of the company, Mr.
Drew. It was most unfair, most unjust, and most
discreditable. It was a perfectly fair and legitimate
course for the plaintiff to adopt, to take some witness
with him. Mr. Drew knew he wes a competent wit-
ness for the defendant, and he also knew that the
plaintiff's mouth was closed as to all that would take
place at that interview. Ile would not allow him to
have the advantage of a wi!ness who could testify as
to what took place between them ; therefore he wa'
entirely at the mercy of the conclave of officials then
present. He again said that he hoped so unfair a
course would not be repeated by the officials of any
rail way company, and he thought no jury would be
inclined to favour those who pursued so very discre-
ditable a course. His Lordship then went throne
,he evidence on both sides, and left it to the jury to
say whether or not the plsin:iff had made out his case,
and if so, what damages he was entitled to.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 451.
Lord CAMPBELL then said that this was the last
case of the circuit; and he was so much pleased with
the manner in which the business had been conducted
at Bristol, and with the intelligence of its juries, that
he should have much pleasure in coming here again
next summer.

NORTH WALES ClRCUlT.—Chester, Aug. 16.
CROWN COURT'.—(Before Mr. Justice Lee-
FOURD.)
William Doran and Thomas Sharpies were in-
dicted for warehouse-breaking at Macclesfield, and
stealing a quantity of manufactured silks, the pro-
perty of Goldthorpe, Hoy ley, and Co., and Thomas
Fenton stood charged with receiving the same, know-
ing the goods to be stolen.
Mr. Trafford and Mr. Wynne Ffoulkes appeared
for the prosecution ; and the prisoners, who severed
in their defences, were represented by Messrs. M'ln-
tyre, Brandt, and Sweetenham.
The case presented no features of general interest.
It appeared that shortly after the warehouse was
broken open and the goods stolen, a quantity of the
property was found by the police in possession of the
prisoner Fenton, who carried on the business of a ge-
neral broker in Manchester. He at first gave unsa-
tisfactory accounts of the manner in which he became
possessed of the goods, but eventually he stated that
he bought the goods of the prisoners Duran and
Sharpies, who had been introduced to him by a con-
federate named Shaw. They were all apprehended,
and Shaw being admitted approver, and his story
corroborated in some material points by others, they
were all found guilty. Doran and Sharples were
then sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and
hard labour, and Fenton to be transported for seven
years. With this clossd the business of these assizes.
The boy Skeen, aged 9 years, who pleaded guilty to
an indictment for placing a dangerous obstruction on
the rails of the London and North-Western Railway,
as reported on a former day, was sentenced to nine
months' imprisonment.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice
WiGiurmAN and a Sprcisl Jury.)

DOSTOCK V. THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.

This action was of a rarger novel character, being
directed by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, to ascer-
tain the right of the defendants to hold regattas and
other public amusements on the Rudyard Reservoir
or Lake. near Leek, in this county.
Mr. Evans, QC., Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Pulling
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Grove and Mr. Brava❑
for the defendants.

Mr. EVANS stwed that the plaintiff, Miss Bostock,
Was a lady of rank and family, living at Cliffe-park,
near Leek, in this county, an estate of great beauty
and value, situate on the borders of the princely,
sequestered reservoir or lake, which formed the
subject of the present dispute. Miss B.)stock de.
rived the property from a Mr. Haworth, who had
built the mansion-house and laid out the grounds
many years ago, and the property had before belonged
to his ancestors. The defendants were possessed of
the property of the now defunct Trent and Mer-
sey Canal Company, who, having been authorised in
1766 to form a canal, obtained powers in 1797
to form a reservoir of water for feediog the said canal,
and formed in the Rudyard Valley the reservoir which
formed the subject of this action. By the Acts of
Parliament of the company, they were authorised
only to use the canal for the purposes of navigation,
and the reservoir for the purpose of supplying the
canal with water, the rights of fishing, shooting,
digging mineral, using pleasure boats, stud a number
of other rights being expressly reserved to the neigh-
bouring landowners. The reservoir had been gra-
dually extended over the valley until it formed an
extensive lake two miles in length, copiously supplied
with fish and water-fowl, and became an extremely
picturesque ohject in the valley, in the midst of which
stood the plaintiff's mansion and park, beautifully si-
tuated and remarkably retired. So matters remained
until the present year, when the North Staffordshire
Railway Company thought proper to make up their
then dividends by advertising in flaming handbills a se-
ries of cheap excursions along their line to the Rudyard
Lake, a regatta to be held on Easter Monday, with
sports of all kinds, music, steam-boats, firing of guns,
&c. Miss Bostock and several of the neighbouring land-
owners expostulated, bat without avail. The regatta
took place, and with an invasion of 6,000 people of all
kinds from the manufacturing districts the jury might
imagine how little the privacy and comfort of the
plaintiff could be consulted. The vast crowd came,
the quiet reservoir became a scene of tumult, amid
the hissing of the steam-boats, the firing of guns, and
the shouts of the people. Miss Bostock's park was
unreservedly trespassed upon, crowds scaled the walls
and fences of the park, broke down the trees, and, last
though not least, openly insulted, by obscene and
abusive language, Miss Bostock and her friends.
The company's agents were expostulated with, but
without avail, and a long correspondence took place,
which, however, did not end in any very satisfactory
manner. On Whit Monday, however, the company
advertised a second cheap excursion to Rudyard
Lake, and Miss Bostock's friends took the alarm, and
Commenced the necessary proceedings to obtain an
injunction, which, however, could not be applied for
in due time to save the fete being held, and it was
arranged to postpone the application. The second
regatta was therefore held, and the same consequences
nearly ensued as those already described as having
taken place on Easter Monday. In June the motion
was made for an injunction, and the Vice-Chanceller
K. Bruce directed the present action to be brought to
try the right; the defendants undertaking in the
mean time not to bold regattas or public amusements
of any kind on the leke until the present action was
tried. Miss B ,stock did not now ask for damages,
but she confidently looked for such a verdict as
would secure her property from the serious injury it
would sustain by a continuance of the defendants'
conduct.

Several witneeses were then called, who deposed to