The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-23 00:00:00

The plaintiff, Mr. Wm. Garton, was examined at consider-
able length in support of the opening, and was cross-exa-
mined rigidly in order to show that certain notices were
served in Bristol at the Temple Meads station and not at
Paddington. The allowance for loading, &c., to the company
was made in some instance, 2s. and in thers 3s. per ton.
Mr. Hewitt, a carrier, Mr. John Wilkinson, a carrier (who
was also for some years manager of goods traffic to the Mid-
land Railway Company), and Mr. Henry Sircom, manager
for the extensive carrying firm of Danks, Venn, and Co.,
were called to prove 2s. per ton would be a reasonale allow-
ance for loading, unloading, covering,. and incidental ex-
Pulses. Two of the witneases, upon cross-examination, ad-
mitted that in making their estimate they had not taken
into.account rent, station, or gas-
Mr. Win. Hole deposed to having been employed to haul
for the railway companies. The charge for loading was 6d.
per ton, and that for unloading also Gd. per ton.
Mr. Richard Parker, formerly a carrier, deposed that a
reasonable charge for loading was 61. per ton, for taking out
4d. per ton, and for covering id. per ton. Upon cross-exa-
mination, the witness admitted having been engaged in a
lengthened course of litigation with the railway companies.
That being the plaintiffs' case,
Mr. M. Smith took a variety of legal objections to the
form and service of the notice, &c., upon which leave was
given to move. With respect to the count in trover, no
notice had been served, and he submitted that the plaintiffs
had no right to sue.
Mr. Smith then addressed the jury for the defendants.
He admitted that there had been a severe struggle going on
between the railway companies and the carriers, but said it
appeared to him that a great deal of the hard language in
which his learned friend had indulged had been very much
misapplied, because, when the case came to be fully inquired
into it would be found that the defendants were really doing
nothing more than protecting their own interests, and that
they had a right to charge for the terminal expenses which
were incident to the carrying on of a large carrying trade.
There was some anomaly in the use which was being made
by the carriers of the xatiways. The companies themselves
had long carried for the public, and the public had been
satisfied; hut the carriers wanted to have their goods carried
without affording to the company a fair remuneration. The
jury should bear in mind that the railway companies were
carriers themselves. They carried on a large trade for the
pui)lie, and it should not be lost sight of that the carriers
were competing with that trade, and that they wanted to
grind down tae railway in order that they might be able to
make a profit out of the rates which the company charged.
The learned counsel went on to argue that the packed par-
cel system imposed on tce railway companies extra liabilities
and greatly augmented the risks of loss, and with reference
to the charges for the terminal e'cpeusea he said the wit-
neeses for the plaintiff had left out of their calculation the
heavy charges for providing station accommodation, such as
goods sheds, receiving and delivering offices, places of depo-
sit, watchmen, gas, &c., as also the liabilities which the com-
panies undertook in regard to the loss and damage of goods.
The rate of charges fixed by the Great Western Company,
and which included both ends, he would read to them. The
art of Parliament had divided the goods to be carried into
five classes, and the company;after a great deal of experience
and a close investigation, had fixed the rate of charges as
follows :—First class, as. 6d.; second class, 4s. ; third class,
4s. 6d.; fourth class, 5,.; fifth class, ss. 6d. per ton. That
was the lowest estimate which experience justified, and it
was not fair to test it by the rough estimate of carriers who
did nothing, more toau pile goods under a shed, and who
made no allowance for the charges which a large and care-
fully conducted trade entailed. With respect to the crate
which had been detained he did not deny that au error had
been committed, and said If the plaintiff's were entitled to
sue without notice, he did not deny that they must recover,
as he had no defence to offer to it. He should submit, how-
ever, that there had been no notice. and that in such a case
notice was most material.
Mr. James Grierson, traffic manager of the Great Western
Railway, was called to prove that the actual cost to the
company for terminable charges, as tested by the four last
half years had been as. 4 1., 35., and 2, 9.1.
per ten. The
cliarges in connection with the Bristol terminus had been in
o:.e instance 2,. 61d., and in another 2s. Bd. per ton. The
witness went into lengthened details to justify his calcula-
tions. He said that the overcharges made were generally
it was not a rule to charge extra for packed
an error by the clerks, who had power to correct them by
At the close of this witness's evidence the cause, which
pthaercseclasiewihses
seemed to excite much interest among the trading commu-
nity, was adjourned till Monday (this day).
nuecciver 5001bs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-dug. 21.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)

Alexander Charles Borromeo, who was convicted on
Monday of bigamy, was this morning again placed at the
bar by the direction of the learned judge.
It will be remembered that when the prisoner was brought
request that his trial
up to'be tried he made a very pressing
might be postponed to give him an opportunity of producing
certain witnesses from Paris, who, he said, could prove that
he was iu that city when the marriage between him and
Miss Sadler was aleged to have taken place in 1842. It
was believed at the time, however, that it was merely an
attempt to obtain delay and cause annoyance to the pro-
Keators, and the application was consequently refused, and
i; turns out that this view of the matter was correct.
The Common Sergeant, addressing the prisoner, said that
he had sent for Win to inform him of the result of an appli-
cation he had made to the Prefecture of Police of Paris
reste c-It•ain parries whose evidence lie desired to
°lark. A eemmunicarion had just been received from
Pat is, the effect of which was that no trace of such persons
as the prisoner had mentioned could be vii-covered, and they
did not seem to have ever been in existence. There did not,
therefore, appear to he the slightest ground fur (lout); ing the
propriety of the vereiet of the jury, and the sentence of
f ;ur years' pered servitude, to commence from the month of
June, 1859, would therel're be carried out.
Whin the prison( r was tried he was fashionably dressed,
and wore a long black beard and moustache, and during the
trial be conducted himself in a most impudent manner.
Since his cenvietiou' however, he has been attired in the
convict gar b, and his beard and moustache have been shaved
off, pursuant to the prison regulations:, antlyhe now preeented
a tnost crest-f :lien and dejee'ed appearance. He made no
reply to the statement of the learned Common Sergeant,
and when he hail concluded he walked hastily from the bar,
apparently glad to escape from the public gaze.
John _Mare, 50, was charged upon the coroner's inqui-
sition with the mauclaughter of his wife, Mary Hoare.
Mr. Poland conducted the prosecution.
The prisoner, it appeared, was a labourer in the docks,
and he and his wife and a stepdaughter about 16 years of
age, lived in Sarah-court, Brick-lane. :They had been
married 15 years, and it was admitted on behalf of the pro-
secution that, the prisoner, when sober, behaved in a kind
mid affectionate manner to the deceased. The prisoner
r: turned home from his work about four o'clock in the after,
noon of the 29th of May, a good deal the -worse for liquor,
and at brie there the deceased and the stepdaughter were in
the room, and the former wished to go out to do a job
she had been engaged for, namely, to clean some offices.,
Ti.e prisoner, for some reason or other, said that she should
net go cut, and she replied that she would, and this led to a
quarrel, and the prisoner struck the deceased on the aria
with his fist. A. scuffle then ensued between them, during
which the table that
was in the room was knocked down,
and !he deceased seized one of the lees that had been broken
olf, arid struck tire prisoner a violent blow on the head
with it, which cut iris head open, and knocked him
down, and the steplagghter also laid hold of the poker
for the purpose, as she said, of protecting her mother.
The prisoner natchel the poker from the daughter,
but shortlglifterwir.!s threw it down, and his stepdaughter
then ran out to fetch a policeman, but before she got to the
street door she heard her molter call out " murder," and
upon her returning to the room she found the prisoner with
the poker in his hand. Hee mother had both her hands
to 11;:r side, and she said that the prisoner had struck her
there wish the poker, and he made no reply. A policeman
arrived soon afterwards, hat no charge was given; and it
appeared that at this time it was not. supposed that any
sericus injury had been inflie•erl upon the deceased. A
dry or two afterwards, however, she became very
ill, 9114 was. reamed to the London Hospital, where