The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-27 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

RAILWAY COMPENSATIO.N.—A suit has been brought in
the second Court of Queen's Bench by a widow named
Bridges to recover compensation for the death of her
husband, which was occasioned by an accident
on the North London Railway. He was returning
from the City to Highbury one evening last
January, and got out when the train stopped, on hear-
ing She call of " Highbury." The carriage in which he
sat was not, however, clear of the tunnel, and he fell
among some rubbish, being seriously injured. He died in
consequence, and the action was brought for negligence
on the part of the company's servants. The judge said
he would direct a nonsuit, with leave to the plaintiff to
move to enter a verdict for such sum as the jury should
assess if the Court should think there was evidence of
negligence. Damages £1,200, the plaintiff being non-
suited, with leave reserved as above.
Amyrnza RAILWAY CASE.—A new trial in the case of
"Johns v. the London and South-Western Railway" has
been heard in the Court of Exchequer. The plaintiff is a
market gardener at Isleworth, and the defendant's lino of
railway crosses his lands, so that to go from one
portion to another he has to cross the line on a
level. The plaintiff's carman was crossing with a
waggon, when a train came up without warning and
struck the team, killing two horses. The jury gave the
damages asked, £37 10s. The evidence of the former trial
was repeated, with the addition that the defendants
ne-driver had not used his signal. It
admitted their engi
appeared that sonic time before the accident the plaintiff's
solicitor wrote to the defendants calling their attention to
the dangerous state of their line. Mr. James, for the com-
pany, objected that the evidence was only of contributory
negligence ; but Baron Martin said he always considered
contributory negligence as matter of fact and not of law,
and therefore could not withdraw the case from the jury,
Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
MANSLAUGHTER BY A GIRL.--A young woman, named
Eva Wallis, was charged at the New Court with the
manslaughter of an old woman. Tho old woman, whose
name was Griffiths, lodged at the house of the prisoner's
mother, and was to leave in consequence of some disagree-
ment. She was standing at the door talking to a neigh-
bour, when the prisoner came up and pushed her into the
house.. She fell and fractured her thigh, from which
accident she died. Verdict " Not Guilty."
DAMN() FaAtD.—Alfred Howard, described as a labourer,
and a woman, named Nicholson, were charged with steal-
ing two dresses, worth £35, from Messrs. Jay, of Regent-
street. The prisoners selected the dresses at the
shop, the male prisoner giving a fictitious cheque
on a Fleet-street bank in payment. There
were several similar charges against them, one for
obtaining goods worth £35 from a dressing-case-maker in
Cornhill. Howard was sentenced to Ave years' penal
servitude, and Nicholson discharged. The property in the
hands of the police was said to be worth M. he woman
applied for some of it, whiob sto Skid belonged to her, but
the Commissioner declined to WM an order 4dvtslng her
to get a "pettifogging " 4004 t 4 bring an action for
law if shilliatiitittiov_4_