The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-11 00:00:00

851.

would have come upon me. I was still upon the arm of
Lord Ranelagh. Lord Ranelagh held up his arm to pre-
vent my being knocked against the gate. The porter
collared him—that is, I suppose, how it is expressed in
English.—(A laugh.) The policeman, whom I know
(that is the man, meaning Price), also collared him. All
that Lord Illnelagh said was, "Leave me alone." He
never did strike with his cane. I saw Carpenter. He
collared Lord Ranelagh in the same way. I never
heard Lord Ranelagh use any bad expressions, but only
" Leave me alone." _

Lord A. S. Churchill and Captain Jennings gave
testimony similar to that of Lieut.-Colonel M.Dowall.
At the desire of the magistrate, the question was pnt
to each of the witnesses who formed the party whether
they had tickets; and they all stated that they had.
Frederick Swinburn, 22, Bush-lane, Cannon-street,
was at the station, and saw the dangerous position of
Mrs. Jennings and Lord Ranelagh; but he did not see
any blow struck by his Lordship.
Mr. Ballantine—That is the case for the defendants.
Mr. Bodkin—l believe by a provision in a recent Act
of Parliament I am not permitted to address you, Sir, in
reply?
Mr. SECKER —No. It is one of Sir J. Jervis's Acts.

After a few minutes' deliberation,
Mr. SECKER proceeded to give his decision. Ile said,
—lt seems to me that this is a case which, though it has
occupied a considerable time, and has from the first been
the cause of observations of a nature calculated to irri-
tate one party or the other, lies, after all, in
a very small compass. The charge is that these
two gentlemen did unlawfully and wilfully obstruct
Price, he being an officer of the South-Eastern Railway
Company, and in the due execution of his duty as such.
The state of the circumstances appears to me to divide
the transactions into two distinct periods, on each
of which I shall deliver my opinion as well as I can,
after having heard the voluminous and contradictory
evidence that has been given. The first part of the
transaction is the conflict arising between some pas-
sengera on a railway station, and the officers who are
there placed to execute certain duties. The second part
is with respect to certain acts of violence that occurred
at a subsequent period of,the transactions, and which by
themselves appear to be the foundation of a different
charge. With respect to the first, I am called upon to
convict two passengers, what their condition in life may
be it matters not, for assaulting and obstructing officers
of the railway while in the execution of their duty. In
order to convict them of any such offence, it seems to me
that I must first believe that those officers, were in the
execution of their duty, and that, being so, they were ob-
structed by the defendants. Now, in my opinion, the
officers were not in the execution of their duty; and it is
for this reason that I have had it put is evidence that
these parties who presented themselves at the railway,
and who are accused of attacking the officers are entitled
by the payment of a certain sum to be carried by the
railway company. By that payment the railway com-
pany contracted an obligation to admit them to the plat-
form, so that they might avail themselves of the licence
to travel by their train, which they by such payment
had obtained; consequently these passengers were en-
titled to have free ingress to the station and egress from.
it in order to make use of the train in the fulfilment of
that contract. These passengers, then, having been per-
mitted to pass the outer barrier, had a right to expect
that the coast would be clear, and that they would not
find any one interfering with them. If, then, these pas-
sengers, having thus acquired this right to pass, were
improperly interfered with, can it be said that those
officers who were guilty of such interference were in the
execution of their duty? I think not. Therefore,
with respect to this charge, in which I am asked to
convict Lord Ranelagh and Mr. Michael Rowland,
for that they did unlawfully and wilfully obstruct
William Price and Thomas Widdows, being officers
of the South-Eastern Railway Company, they being
in the due execution of their duty, I am of opinion that
those men were not in the execution of their deity, arid
therefore the information must be dismissed, and I dis-
miss the complaint accordingly. With respect to the
assault which might be considered to have been com •
mitted at the station by these officers, that is another
question, which must be gone into on the second inquiry.
Mr. Ballantine said that, with the exception of the
fact that Lord Ranelagh and Mr. Rowland would have to
b© examined, the second case would rest upon the tes-
timony which had already been given, and he should be
perfectly willing to leave the question upon that
evidence.
Mr. SECKER said that contradictory evidence might
possibly be brought forward which might make it im-
possible to decide the case upon the testimony already
taken.
After a good deal of discussion, it was arranged that
the case against Sergeant Carpenter should be pro-
ceeded with on Wednesday next, Lord Ranelagh re-
serving to himself the right to adopt any course he
thought proper with regard to the charge against the
railway officials.
The proceedings did not terminate till a quarter to
five o'clock.