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

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 30, 1858.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, AUG.2B.
ANGUS V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Overeat), Q.C., and Mr. Cln appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. blilwain ard, and Mr. West
for the defendants.
This was an action brought to recover damages for inju-
ries sustained by the plaintiff iu consequence of the negli-
gence of the company or their servants.
Mr. Overend, in opening t'te case, said that the plaintiff,
Mr. Angus, 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 21 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 —lst, 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 workcornmunicating 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,
and that at the time of the accident the speed could not have
been less than 60 miles an hour.
Mr. Caddo, civil engineer, was called, and stated that,
bad 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, We 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
flzw 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 bad no
cause to drive at a greater speed with a view to make up
time. He first knew of the accident in consequence of ajerk
and, on looking back, saw two carriages and a van going
over the line, upon which he reversed his engine, and after
running '2OO 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, but 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 soon go over the part of the line in
question at 60 as at 30 miles an hour, and he levald not
scruple to run an engine in proper order over this line is
good repair at 70 miles an hour.
The Tuxford station-masterdeposed that at the time when
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 Retford proved that the train passed
through there at its proper time to the minute ; and
The station-master of Sheffield (Mr. Warder ) proved that
had
he
started the train from that place at the prop time. He
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 eunshot 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 etnbankment. 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 weremuchbent.
The superstructures of the carriages were damaged, but it
only cost f„,..5 165.'76. cacti carriage for the necessary repair..
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 sonic 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 69 miles an hour.
If the conducting end had been attached to the engine and
van it would have been no earthly use 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 Compaby, said the Scotch and Yorkshire
expresses were first run 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 believed that speed
was safe. The fished joints had been used for about five or
six years, and it had 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. ADAMSON AND OTHERS.
Mr. J. Wilde Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Cross, and Mr. Webster
appeared for the plaintiff's; Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. Ma-
nisty, Q.C., and Mr. Hiudmarch appeared for the defen-
dan ts.
This action was brought by the plaintiffs, who are engi-
neers at Liverpool, against the defendants, alio are ship-
builders at Sunderland, for the infringement of a patent
granted to Charles Lamport on the 19th June, 1850, fur an
invention of, among other things, en improvement in
winches. This patent had been assigned to the plaintiff. by
the patentee.
Tee invention consisted in adding to an ordinary winch
an apparwits fe. working chains, termed a " gipsy," so as
to make the winch applicable to working chains as well as
ropes. The gipsy consists cf a pulley fixed upon as 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.
Tee gipsy and the rope barrel were both admitted to be
old, but it was alleged that they dha never been combined
in the same winch, and the plaintiff -c ev
alled 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 otherbarrels, but the draw-
ings did not show a winch containing both a gipsy and a
rope barrel.
The defendants then called Mr. J. C, Gibson, who proved
that, anterior to the plaintiff's patent, he bad purchased
Pratt's patent, and inside 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-
dente, 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
reLiererhpaonotl,lBllnedract
ytroyu. The la i tlt lff
owfh
goodo i s a tannerappearance
hide
position, had permitted his name to be usedthaet a late
committee`munii-
pal election in Liverpool as chairman of of
it nh e
thelo The libel consisted ors article
election, nor,
butin
fact,
trirtotteoptelerdgoannayllyoftatronmaeneytipnagrst.
His candidate was successful.
containing very humorous description of the pceedinge
twhhroenugithoreuptttehseendtaryd,thaend at the close
triumphantof the poll,
to have been of a very uproarious and disorderly
The objectionable words were :
"iNrr.proceedingespeeialiye of the
character. party
I know every man of you.' The chairman,' however, w as!
himselfafon et ,h thee
through the
chairman
nodfettch
eellhl committee, nexth, pre-
sentedoi
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 statuteic (Lord
Campbell's Act) that the libetwascontainedin asp übl news-
paper ; that it was inserted without malice, ud without
paper; negligence; that the defendants had inserted a full
apology in a subsequent number ; and that which WaS
paid into court, was a sufficient compensetion.
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
devoted to notices to correspondents, and it was alleged by
the plaintiff that that was not a sufficiently public part of
applaotinotaiyff.was
the
tp2
thera
aepnee Pr4rapbaolpnerudttteotarhttrait:taenstmghwueflijitothr.oyiptuitfwogbfaresoi readers.ns ssgonepsgme negligence
el
inntaacslwel personally in
apabeulqesbuolaaiuslimrhngitoneesgd:
sufficient in terms,°
so prominently placed in the paper a.
The jury found that there was n
withth that the the
They thought 40s. sufficient damages, and
us
but
usa
phottnegligence
that
hil
sat
vfiwe finding,
been.
eiannennegdt
Mr, Boron M ortia ordered the verdict to be entered for

the plaintiff for nominal damages in addition to the 40F.
raid into court, giving the defendants leave to move if the
Court should be of opinion that the mere position of the
apology in the paper rendered it insufficient.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BRISTOL, AUG. 27.
(Before Mr. Baron Wats m.)
THE OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON
RAILWAY COMPANY V• MARSHALL.
Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the
plaintiff's; and Mr. Collier and Mr. Kerslake for the defen-
dant.
This was an action brought by this company to recover
compensation in consequence of the defendant having left a
large quantity of timber on their premises for 16 months.
It appeared that on the disforesting of the Royal Forest of
Wychwood the defendant bought a large quantity of the
timber. He brought it to the plaintiff's' station at Cheri-
bury; it having remained there for several months, the
plaintiffs wrote to the defendant, stating that if he did not
remove the timber he would be charged 6d. per ton per week.
To this the defendant sent no answer. Still the timber re-
mained, until at length the company, being put to extreme
inconvenience from the timber being allowed to remain in
their station, the present action was brought.
Proof was given of these facts.
Mr. Collier, in cross-examining a witness, asked him if it
was not the custom to allow timber to remain at railway
stations for an indefinite period ?
Mr. Baron Watson—Supposing every time your tailor
madeyou a coat he gave you a glass of sherry with it, could
you turn that into a custom ?
Mi. Collier said he understood it was the custom for rail-
ways to allow it.
For the defendant it was urged that railway companies
required a great deal of watching, and if they could get in
the narrow end of the wedge they would soon expand what
they called their rights to au extraordinary degree. But the
defence was that the company had not provided trucks, and
the timber remained, to the great inconvenience of the de-
fendant. The stationmaster had promised that when he
had trucks he would give the defendant notice, and he had
never done so. The fact was that, in order to procure traffic
railway companies were in the habit not only of allowing
timber merchants to deposit their timber at the stations, but
also in many instances they provided sawpits without making
any charge. The defendant had paid E 5 into court, and that,
he submitted, was sufficient.
The defendant and many witnesses were called to prove
that it was the custom of railway companies to allow timber
to be left at the stations without any charge. Same of them
said that there were not trucks to take the timber away
when the defendant wanted them.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages,
£6O.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.—PICTURE DEALING EXTRAORDI-
NARY.—W. 2'. Barnes, the son, and Mrs. Barnes, the
wife, of Mr. Barnes, the well-known picture dealer and
auctioneer, of St. Paul's Church-yard, appeared upon sum-
monses before Alderman Wire, to answer the charge of con-
spiracy to defraud Mr. R. H. Peter, a gentleman of inde-
pendent fortune, residing in Hyde-park-square, of various
sums of money, amounting to nearly £2,000, under the
following circumstances :
Mr. Sleigh appeared for the prosecution.
Mr. Metcalfe, for the defendants, submitted that this was
a proceeding to damage the defendants' position in an action
now pending upon a bill of exchange, and referred the
alderman to a case in law.
Alderman Wire said this case and the one referred to
were essentially different.
Mr. Sleigh having stated the facts of the case, called Mr.
Robert Herries Peter, of Hyde-park-square, who said—l
called at the shop of the defendants in May last, and saw the
male defendant. I bought two pictures for £7O, and paid £3
to a man who had previously bought thew, for his bargain.
The defendant said they had been exhibited at the Brussels
Exhibition. Some time after, Mrs. Barnes called at my house
one morning. She told me a lady, whose husband had lately
died, and who was a cousin of the Duke of Newcastle, had
been left with a gallery of pictures, which had cost her hus-
band £lOO,OOO, but which she, being in great distress on
account of the extravagance of her two sons, wished to dis-
pose of. Mrs. Barnes also said that the lady wished her to
dispose of them to the best advantage. She did not ask tae
to buy any of them, but her son called upon me a few days
after, bringing four of the pictures with him, and said he had
brought some very fine pictures from the collection beliong-
ing tothe Duke of Newcastle's relative, mentioned by his
I mother. He also said the lady did not wish the pictures
should be publicly sold. He came on four or five other oc-
casions, bringing pictures with him, which be said belonged
to the same collection. I gave him cheques every time to the
amount of the pictures which he valued—one, which he said
was a Rosa Ronheur, for £5OO ; one, alleged to be a Turner,
for £300; a Rubens, and many others, which I cannot now
recollect. One, which he represented as the finest picture
Murillo ever painted, he said had cost the lady's husband as
much as 6,000 guineas. The amount of the cheques I gave
for these pictures was from £l,OOO to £1,200, besides a bill
for £l,OOO which I gave in payment for the Rosa Bonbenr, the
Turner, and six others. I should not have parted with any
of these cheques if I had not believed that they were genuine
pictures, and that they formed part of the collection they
were represented as belonging to. The defendants brought
me various little presents in the name of the lady, who they
said was deeply grateful to me for purchasing her pictures,
and that she was having a handsome piece of plate engraved
for me. A few days after they told me this, they brought
me this silver-gilt cup.
Mr. Sleigh—This cup, sir, is inscribed—" Presented to
Robert Herries Peter, Esq., by a dear and beloved friend "
—(laughter); and I may add that it has a ducal coronet on
the lid surmounted with a ram's head. It has also the in-
scription on the lid—" Newton Races, 1855. The gift of the
Lord of the Manor." (Renewed laughter.)
Alderman Wire—l suppose, then, it_ was the gift of the
Duke of Newcastle. (Laughter.)
Witness—The picture produced is the Rosa Bonhear,
for which I gave £3OO.
Mr. Sleigh—l shall be able to show you, sir, that while
these visits were going on, this identical Rosa Bonhenr
was purchased at Christy and Manson's for £l7 6s. 6d.
At this stage of the case it was arranged to adjourn the
further hearing, and the cross-examination of the prose-
cutor was therefore deferred.
The defendants having entered into their recognisauces,
the summonses were then adjourned.
SHARPERS.—lrilliant Gordon. a tall middle-aged man,
with dark complexion, was charged with conspiring with
another not in custody to cheat and defraud George
Goatley of £5.
The prosecutor, a young man fresh from the country,
stated that on arriving in town a few days ago he met with
a man on Lendon-bridge, who accosted him, and in the
course of conversation offered to get him a situation with
his uncle, who was in the grocery line. The man volun-
teered to go with him to his uncle's, and on the way he
proposed having a glass of, ale, upon which they turned
into a public-house in Water-lane, Blackfriars, and while
standing in front of the bar the prisoner came in with a
carpet-bag, secured by a small brass padlock. He entered
into conversation with them, and then showed them the
padlock, which be said they could not open, at the same
time leaving the lock in the prosecutor's hands, while he
quitted the house for a few minutes. When be returned
the prosecutor had succeeded in opening the lock, and
the prisoner then offered to bet £lO that neither of
them could open it again while lie counted ten. The bet
was accepted, and the prosecutor put down £5, and the
other man put down a£s note. Prosecutor could not open
the lock within the time, and the prisoner put the money in
his pocket, but the other man made an excuse toga out, and
did not return. The prisoner also got away, but prosecutor
met him the next day, when he was taken into custody.
Upon being searched there was fdund upon him a counter-
feit sovereign, two sham bank notes for £5, and three small
brass padlocks, one of which opened with a spring, and the
other two had a similar appearance, but were soldered so as
to prevent the possibility of opening them without violence.
A second case was gene into against the prisoner, who
offtre.d to plead guilty if he could be dealt with summarily,
hut Alderman Wire said it was so serious an offence that he
should send the prisoner f, r

WESTM INSTE R.—THE ROAD TO RUlN.—Miss Emma
Clark, a fashionably -dressed young woman, who stated
that she was living with her mother in Carey-street,
Vauxhall-bridge-road, was charged before Mr. Paynter
with being drunk and disorderly in Vincent-square.
Police-constable 13 58, said that about half-past 12 o'clock
on Strurday moroiog Its was in Vincent-square, when he
heard the prisoner calling out. Upon going up to her he
observed that she was intoxicated. Ile endeavoured to
prevail upon her not to make such a disturbance, but she
continued doing so, He threatened to take her into custody,
upon which she flung herself upon the pavement and
screamed most violently. He was then forced to take her
into custody, and she was lodged in the station-house.
Mr. Pay nter—ls anything known of her I
Constable—She says that she lives in Carey-street,
Vauxhall-bridge-road.
Sergeant Howard, B 8, observed that he thought she had
given a false address and name.
Mr. Paynter—What is she ?
Constable—l do not know. She was in the company of

way station; and a labouring man, named Hall, obtained
the horse and cart in question on hire from a Mr. Atkinson.
On the way to the railway station, however, the prisoner
contrived to get rid of Hall, and afterwards attempted to sell
the horse and cart, as above described.
A Mr. Clark, who stated himself to be a merchant's clerk,
now attended as a witness in the first case, and proved that
the prisoner offered to him the pony which he had hired at
Blackheath. He stated that he had been induced to buy it
for £5 when he was drunk, but he ultimately sold it for £3
to the witness, who had since restored it to the owner.
The prisoner, when taken into custody, tore from his cap
and his arm the badges, with the inscription of the Royal
Albert, but it did not appear whether he had really be-
longed to that ship ; and he was now folly committed for
trial upon the charge of horse and cart stealing.

MARYLEBONE.—TIIE ACTRESSun AND HER COOK.—
In the early part of last week a yg woman Mary
Anne Butler, cook to Miss Agnes Elswerthy, the well-
known actress, residing at 59, Finchley-road, St. John's-
wood, applied to Mr. Long for a summons against her mis-
tress for an assault; her application was granted, and the
summons was served at defendant's residence by one of the
officers attached to the court. Saturday was fixed upon for
the hearing, and at twelve o'clock complainant was present
with a witness. Upon the
on first occasionand she exhindbited
marks as if from scratches up her face arm a she
also alleged that some hair had been torn from her head.
Mr. Lewis, jun., Ely-place, who had been engaged on
behalf of defendant, retired with complainant to a private
room, where, after some conversation, the matterinto was
arranged without any particulars being publicly gone .
OUTRAGE ON A WOMAN BY HER HUSBAND.—Henry
Repute was charged with the following violent assaults
upon Mary, his wife :
It appeared from the evidence of complainant, whose
right eye was much bruised and swollen,that prison
living apart from her and cohabiting with another woman.
On the previous day he came drunk to her (complahen inant'she)
apartments, 18, Mary-place, Hampstead-road, w
commenced pulling down some pictures, which he swore be
would carry off. She told him he should not do so, and be
then gave her several severe blows on her face andd side.
He was given into the custody of Hall, 264 S, by mhe
was conveyed to the station-house.
Mr. Long fined him 405., or a month in the House of
Correction.
ROBBERY BY A SERTANT.— Elizabeth Bernard,
who had been taken into custody by Hoare, 46 D, was
brought up for further examination, charged with having
on the sth instant absconded from 4, George-terrace, Bays-
water, and stealing and carrying off wearing apparel and
other property,',belonging to her master, Mr. Smith. It
appeared that, when captured, she was wearing some of the
stolen articles, and that she had sold others to a person in
Little Portland-street.
The primer, who cried, and had nothing to say in her
defence, was committed for trial.
PLATE ROBBERY.—Henry White, who stood remanded
from the previous Saturday upon evidence given by Sergeant
Potter, 16 D, and other witnesses, was again placed at the
bar, charged on suspicion of having stolen a quantity of
silver plate, value £4O, the property of Miss Arabella Bar-
rett, 7, Delamere-terrace, Paddington.
The prisoner was for the present discharged, but was told
that he was liable to be re-apprehended in the event of
stronger evidence being obtained against him.
POT STEALING.--Diary Anne Chivers, an old offender,
was charged with having stolen a pint pewter pot from the
house of Mr. Avern, the Marylebone Ale Stores, Maryle-
bone-lane.
The case was clearly proved against the prisoner, who, on
being taken into custody by 100 D, said she hived she
should have six months; she had before been punished for
a similar offence. She was sent to hard labour in the House
of Correction for a month.