The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-30 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, AUG. 28.
ANGUS T. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Quoin appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. Milward, and Mr. West

for the defendants.
This was an action brought to recover damages for inju-
ries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the negli-
gence of the company or their servants.
Mr. Overend, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff,
Mr. Angua, was a fruiterer at Sheffield, and on the morning
of Thursday, the 24th Sept. last, he took a second-class
ticket to travel by the express train which runs between
Manchester and London from Sheffield to Peterborough.
The train consisted of four carriages, one break-van, and
one engine and tender. All went well until they arrived at
Retford, when the speed was considerably increased, and by
the time the train arrived at Tuxford, a still further in-
creased speed was perceptible. About 2-1 miles beyond Tux-
ford the speed was perfectly frightful, and the oscillation
severe. In a few moments some of the carriages were preci-
pitated over the battlements of the bridge into the highway
below, and the other two carriages and the van, which were
attached to the engine, proceeded about 200 yards further,
when they left the line and rolled down the embankment
into a garden. Five persons were killed and several wounded,
and among the latter was the plaintiff, who had been very
severely injured, and, indeed, had not recovered from the
effects of the accident up to this day. The plaintiff had four
causes of complaint against the company-Ist, that the speed
of the train was excessive ; 2dly, that for a line of this de-
scription the rails were of an improper character for the
speed at which trains were run over it, the line not being as
yet, as it ought to be, fish•jointed; 3dly, that there was no
means of communication between the guard and driver, al-
though the third rule of the company was that the guard
should workcommunicating signals, but not put them in mo-
tionexcept in case of urgent necessity; and, 4thly, that there
was only one break van instead of two, as was usually the
case.

Mr. J. Angus, the plaintiff, Mr. Dranefield, Mr. Beare,
and Mr. Richardson, passengers by the train, all concurred
in stating that the speed was moderate up to Tuxford ; that
after leaving Tuxford the speed was alarmingly increased,
ani that at the time of the accident the speed could not have
been less than 60 miles an hour. . .

Mr. Cashin, civil engineer, was called, and stated that,
had there been a connection between the guard and driver,
the latter could have pulled up his engine in 150 yards or so,
and thus no accident would have happened to the first car-

riages in the train.
The report of Col. Wynne, the Government inspector to
the Board of Trade, was put in, from which it speared that
the accident was not attributed to high speed, but to some
flaw in the metals, and the line not being " fished " at the
point of the melancholy occurrence in question.
Mr. Atherton then addressed the jury for the defendants,
and contended that although this unfortunate accident had
occurred, yet it was not attributable to any negligence on
the part of the company's servants, and that, therefore, the
plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages.
The engine-driver was then called, and deposed that at the
time of the accident he was driving at the rate of 45 miles
an hour. The train was not late, and therefore he had no
cause to drive at a greater speed with a view to make up
time. He first knew of the accident in consequence of aj!rk
and, on looking back, saw two carriages and a van going
over the line, upon which he reversed his engine, and after
running 200 yards the couplings separated from the tender,
and the two remaining carriages went over the embankment
into a garden.
The guard of the train, who was much injured by the
accident, stated that the train was going at the usual express
speed of 45 miles an hour. He admitted, on examination,
that the cord to communicate with the driver was not run
along the carriages to the engine, bnt it ought to have been,
and it was his duty to have seen that the cord was connected
with the van and the engine.
The foreman platelayer of that portion of the line at which
the accident occurred deposed that the train passed the bridge
at its usual time and speed. About 200 yards beyond the
bridge dust began to fly, and in half a minute the train went
off the line. After the accident he examined the permanent
way, and everything was correct.
Other witnesses—platelayers on the line—corroborated this
evidence.
Edward Brown, a goods engine-driver, was called, and he
stated that he would as soin go over the part of the line in
question at 60 as at 30 miles an hour, and he would not
scruple to run an engine in proper order over this line in
good repair at 70 miles an hour.
The Tuxford station-master deposed that at the time whT
the express passed through that station on the morning in
question it was going at the speed it had always travelled at
and that it travelled at now.
The foreman porter at Retferd proved that the train passed
through there at its proper time to the minute coed
The station-master of Sheffield ( Mr. Ward) p that he
started the train from that place at the proper time. He bad
himself been a guard, and believed one van was sufficient for
a short train of four carriages.
Mr. James Smith, of Bury, Lancashire, was travelling
first-class in this train. Up to the time of the accident
there was nothing to excite surprise in the speed. Suddenly
as a gunshot the train left the line. There had not been any
oscillation previously. He was stunned at the moment when
he found himself at the bottom of the embankment. He
had travelled in the same carriage with the Hon. Mr. Clive,
who was killed, and Mr. Rayner. The carriage was smashed
to pieces. The ballast was much ploughed up.
In cross-examination the witness admitted that he was
travelling on this occasion with a pass, and he was smoking
from the time that he left Sheffield.
In re-examination, he stated the pass was from the Man-
chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company.
Mr. Rayner deposed that about a minute before the acci-
dent he felt the carriage oscillate.
Mr. Stirrup, locomotive engineer, deposed that all rolling
portions of the carriages were in perfect order, with the ex-
ception of the axles of the break van, which were much bent.
The superstructures of the carriages were damaged, but it
only cost 5,5 16s. 7d. each carriage for the necessary repairs.
He looked over the permanent way, but could not find any
cause for the accident. All the express trains on the Great
Northern Railway passed over some portions of the line at
60 miles an hour. The portion of the line where this acci-
dent occurred was particularly good—just such a piece as
one would choose to run an express over at 60 miles an hour.
If the conducting end had been attached to the engine and
van it would have been no earthly we whatever in this acci-
dent. The fact of the carriages ploughing up the line was
a most operative break—far better than anything else that
could have been done. A guard could not put on the break
in less than half a minute, and if a train were running at 55
miles an hour it would run 150 yards in five or six seconds.
Mr. Seymour Clarke, the general !manager of the Great
Northern Railway Company, said the Scotch and Yorkshire
expresses were first sun over the line in 1851. The trains
on the line are timed torun, including stoppages, at 45 miles
an hour, and considering that this train was running over a
very favourable portion of the line, doubtless it would be
running at 55 miles an hour, and he beiieved that speed
was safe. The fished joints had been used for about five or
six years, and it bad become a rule among engineers that
as the old metals were worn out the new metals were pro-
perly made to enable them to be laid with fish joints. Week
by week the portions of fish-jointed lines are increasing, for
as the old metals are worn out they are replaced by metals
with fish joints. One van was sufficient for a light train of
four carriages, but when the traffic increased in November,
and the trains were heavier, two vans were used. In this
accident a second break would have been of no use whatever.
Mr. Baron Martin having summed up, and directed the
jury that the company were bound to use all necessary care
to insure the safety of the passengers,
The jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for
the defendants.
WOOD AND OTHERS V. A.DAMSON AND OTHERS.

Mr. J. Wilde, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Cross, and Mr. Webster
appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. Ma-
nisty, Q.C., and Mr. Hindmarch appeared for the defen-
dants.
This action was brought by the phintiffg, who are engi-
neers at Liverpool, against the defendants, who are ship-
builders at Sunderland, for the infringement of a patent
granted to Charles Lamport on the 19th June, 1850, for an
invention of, among other things, an improvement in
winches. This patent had been assigned to the plaintiffs by
the patentee.
The invention consisted in adding to an ordinary winch
an apparatus for working chains, termed a " gipsy," so as
to make the winch applicable to working chains as well as
ropes. The gipsy consists of a pulley fixed upon an axle,
with which it turns, and has several pairs of projections,
called " snugs," placed opposite each other at intervals
around the groove of the pulley, so as to form recesses to
receive the links of a chain as they enter the groove alter-
nately edgeways and sideways, and thereby preventing the
chain from slipping when motion is given to the gipsy pul-
ley by turning the axle.
The patentee by his specification claimed the combination
of a gipsy with a barrel used for working a rope in an ordi-
nary winch.
The gipsy and the rope barrel were both admitted to be
old, but it was alleged that they had never been combined
in the same winch, and the plaintiff called witnesses to
prove the novelty of the combination.
On the part of the defendants, it was proved that a patent
was granted to Thomas Pratt on the 23d of February, 1839,
for an improvement in ships' capstans and winches, which
consisted in adding to them a pulley the same as a gipsy.
Pratt's specification drawings, however, did not show a rope
barrel but only an ordinary pulley fixed upon the same axle
as the gipsy, although it showed a rope barrel and a gipsy
combined in a capstan.
It was also proved that a patent had been granted to T.
Brown on April 20, 1847, for improvements in the gipsies
added to capstan, windlass, and other barrels, but the draw-
ings did not show a which containing bath a gipsy and a
rope barrel.
The defendants then called Mr. J. C, Gibson, who proved
that, anterior to the plaintiff's patent, he had purchased
Pratt's patent, and made winches under it, containing or-
dinary rope barrels as well as gipsies.
Mr. Wilde then admitted that he could not sustain the
patent, and the jury at once found a verdict for the defen-
dants, on the ground that the invention was not new at the
date of the patent.
LAFONE V. SMITH AND OTHERS.
Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Aspinall appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. C. Blackburn for
the defendants. •
This was an action for libel against the proprietors of the
Liverpool Mercury. The plaintiff, who is a tanner and hide
merchant, and a young gentleman of good appearance and
position, had permitted his name to be used at a late munici-
pal election in Liverpool as chairman of the committee of
the Tory candidate, but had not personally taken any part
in the election, ner, in fact, attended any of the meetings.
His candidate was successful. The libel consisted of an article
containing a very humorous description of the proceedings
throughout the day, and especially at the close of the poll,
when it represented the proceedings of the triumphant party
to have been of a very uproarious and disorderly character.
The objectionable words were :
"Mr. Lafone, the chairman of the committee, next pre-
sented himself through the window, and bawled, Oh, oh
I know every man of you.' The chairman,' however, was!
evidently so overpowered by his devotions to Bacchus that
he could not proceed with his speech, and his friends pulled
him in and kept him quiet by physical force."
The defendants pleaded under the recent statute (Lord
Campbell's Act) that the libefwascontained in a public news-
paper; that it was inserted without malice, and without
gross negligence ; that the defendants had inserted a full
apology in a subsequent number ; and that 405., which was
paid into court, was a sufficient compensation.
It was proved on the part of the defendants that the con-
duct imputed to the plaintiff was the act of a person who was
erroneously represented to their reporters as the plaintiff.
The apology spoken of had been inserted in the place
pti
devoted to notices to correspondents, and it was alleged by
that. P3trbeeereporter big
tits plaintiff that that was not a sufficiently public part of
the paper, and that the type was so small as to be almost
rr
the majority
negligenceders.ltw ia n publishing
t
s irhgegd
such imputation guilty of g
without being llacquainted
with top plaintiff. peisoua y
The jury found that there was nogrossnegligence and
that the apology was sufficient in terms, but that it was not
so prominently placed in the papereaTise ought to have been.
They thought 40s. sufficient damages, and '
upon this finding,
Mrs Baroi sI tin ordered the verdict to be entered for