The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 26, 1858.

0••••••••••••00.
demonstration of it at Welchpool. He said he saw Mrs.
Ruck making signs to some men, who said hush, " he"
meaning himself, "is not asleep." He said he saw her
drinking with those men. He said that on the platform, on
the journey to Shrewsbury, all the people noticed her in-
decent conduct, and pitied him very much indeed, some of
them saying if they were Mr. Ruck they would get rid of
such a wife as that. He also said that on his arriv-
ing at Reading he discovered his wife had criminal
conversation with Mr. Barnet. He said that Mr.
Barnet had tried to poison him. The conversation lasted
an hour and a half. The next day he went over the same
ground, and when I attempted to reason with him he was
very angry with me. There were four conversations on
four consecutive days, and during all these conversations
he manifested the same delusions. About a fortnight ago I
came to town with Mr. Ruck, who saw his solicitor, Mr.
Wainwright. I had been with them all the morning. Mr.
Ruck, later in the day, saw Mr. Wainwright again, and
though he had been with him all the morning, he said,
" Who is this Mr. Wainwright ?" I said, "Do you not
know him ?" He said, no.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Petersdorfi—l was
brought up as a medical man, but never qualified. I was
apprentice to an apothecary. I should say that when I
conversed with Mr. Ruck on other occasions he showed
that he was under delusions. He had spoken of Mrs. Ruck
before. The last occasion was in April, when he was visited
by Mr. Ackworth. On the 9th of November Mr. Ruck was
in a fit state to drive himself out. I asked him to drive
me out twice, but he refused, on the ground that the horse
would come down; and he did come down since.
Mr. James—Perhaps the horse was unsound also.
(Laughter.)
Witness—Not in the head—in the legs. (Laughter.)
Mr. Chambers —ln the understanding. (Renewed
laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff—You dined with Mr. Ruck and
Mr. Fisher ?
Witness—l did.
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff—Of course yon did not take
too much wine ?

Witness—Well, I bad quite enough. (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff—You were there to control
others—why did you not control yourself ?
Witness—l did, sir, when I paid the bill. In this case it
was paid by Mr. Fisher, and I thought I had no right to
interfere.
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff—Did not you take Mr. Ruck
somewhere else afterwards ?
Witness—We went to the Radnor.
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff—Did not you and Mr. Ruck
have some spirits afterwards ?
Witness—Decidedly not.

Re-examined—Between the, time when Mr. Ruck parted
with Mr. Wainwright in the morning and saw him again in
the afternoon, when he did not know him, we went to Dr.
Johnson's, at Woburn-square. We afterwards went to the
Radnor Luncheon-rooms, at the corner of Chancery-lane.
He took nothing but a pint of stout and some sandwiches;
with the exception of these delusions he was enabled to talk
rationally and to act with propriety. The dinner party with
Mr. Fisher was at the London. After we had got out after
dinner I perceived Mr. Ruck was somewhat intoxicated. I
did not perceive it when it was going on.
_ _

Mr. Chambers—But you were not se much affected that
you could see it in him ?
Witness—Well, I am not much used to taking wine.

Richard Brown examined—l am an attendant at Moore-
croft Asylum, and attended on Mr. Ruck. In July

last he told me that while he was at Reading Mr. Barne

and his wife tried to poison him. He also said that three
years before his wife and her mother had tried to poison him.
He did not like women with red petticoats. He would not
meet them. He would say, "- it, I can't stand this,"
and he would walk round two miles to avoid them.
(Laughter.) Last Sunday week we walked to Southall,
and went into a public-house for refreshment. Two drover,
came in there. One of them began talking about Welch-
pool. Mr. Ruck winked at me, and whe❑ he came out he
said " I thought that man knew something of my case," and
that if so he would have sent me out of the room, as the
conversation would not have bee❑ fit for me to bear. He
said it was a - hard case that he was confined in such
a place, as he could not open his mind to any one, as his
solicitor had told him not to say anything except in his pre-
sence.

Mr. James—But that is true ; he could not say anything
without it being reported.
Witness—l am not bound to report everything.
Mr. James—But you do when you think it worth while.
Witness—Yes.
Mr. James—Did you thank this conversation on Sunday
about the Welsh drover was a delusion ?
Witness—l did.
Mr. James—Have you ever seen a Welsh drover ?
Witness—l have seen 'em with Welsh cows. (Laughter.)
Mr. J ames—W ell, altering a quotation from Dr. J ohnson,
" Who drives Welsh oxen should himself he Welsh."
(Great laughter.) Did he look like a drover?
Witness—lie wa, dressed like one.
Mr. .James—Oh, I do not ask you whether lie locked
like a Welsh drover naked. (Laughter.) Did be look
like one dressed?

Witness—He did.
Mr. James—And after all he was an undertaker ?
Witness—He was. (Roars of laughter.)
Mr. James—Did you consider his aversion to ladies in
red petticoats as a delusion?
Witness—l did.
Mr. James—Did you report that to Dr. Stillwell.
Witness—l did.
Mr. James—Why ?
Witness—l thought it an extraordinary thing that a
gentleman should be afraid of three ladies!
Mr. James—By no means. (Laughter.)
Mr. Chambers said that perhaps it would be now a conve-
nient time to examine Mr. Ruck.
_ The Commissioner having assented,
Mr. Ruck left his place behind his counsel, and took his
seat near the learned Commissioner, by whom he was exa-
mined to the following effect :
The Commissioner—You have been present during the
whole of this inquiry ?
Mr. Ruck—l have.
The Commissioner—And it has not disturbed your mind ?
Mr. Ruck—Net at all.
TheCommissioner—Having heard the whole of the evidence,
have you anything to say in reference to these alleged
delusions
Mr. Ruck—At the time when these suspicions took pos-
session of my mind I was then in an agitated state of mind
from drink, and thus the suspicions were formed ; and at
that time I was put into the asylum without any means of
inquiry whether my suspicions were founded on facts, and
up to this hour I have had no opportunity of investigating
the facts. I merely wished for inquiry. I should not have
taken much trouble, and as soon as I was told I had
in a drunken state made charges which were false
I should immediately have abandoned them. I believe if
I had seen Mr. Fisher there would have been no necessity
for my going t• Moorecroft. I was then as sane as lam
now, thOugh I bad my suspicions as to my wife.
The Commissioner—You were a little intemperate at that
time?
Mr. Ruck—Yes.
The Commissioner—And you have been abstemious since
you went to the asylum ? Yon had not seen your wife for
a considerable time until yesterday ?
Mr. Ruck—Not since February.
The Commissioner—January, I believe.
Mr. Ruck—l don't think it was in January or February.
I think it was last November.
The Commissioner—lt must have afforded you great
pleasure to see your wife yesterday.
Mr. Ruck—l was very happy to see her looking so well.
The Commissioner—Your mind has been disabused of all
the impressions it had formed ?
Mr. Ruck—Yes.
The Commissioner—Can you explain to the jury how it
happened that they took possession of your mind ?
Mr. Ruck—lt must have been from jealousy and excite-
, ment.

The Commissioner—Assuming that these suspicions were
caused by inebriety, then when the effects had gone off did
the suspicions last? Were the suspicions entirely removed
from your mind ?
Mr. Ruck—l wished to ascertain if I had good ground for
my suspicions, and requested to see my solicitor that I might
investigate the facts.
The Commissioner—And have the facts been investigated
to your satisfaction ?
Mr. Ruck—Yes, entirely.
The Commissioner—Who has been investigating them ?
Mr. Ruck—My solicitor, Mr. Wainwright.
• The Commissioner—Did you entertain suspicions until
you saw Mr. Wainwright ?
Mr. Ruck—My mind was not divested of them.
Tke Commissioner—What facts did he Investigate ?
Mr. Ruck—Quite sufficient to prove to me that my sus-
picions were purely imaginary. One fact was that a gentle-
man who was mentioned was not at Welchpool at the time.
Another was that Miss Jones lay down by my side at night.
I have found that was untrue.
The Commissioner—Were there any other facts brought to
your knowledge by Mr. Wainwright which aided you in
throwing these impressions off your mind?
Mr. Ruck—Yes, I find that the name of the commercial
traveller whom I suspected of familiarity with my wife was
Bailey, and not Beach.
The Commissioner—Was there any other fact communi-
cated to you by Mr. Wainwright which opened your mind?
Mr. Ruck—Yes, that Mrs. Rucakuntainted. well
was
ted. A
receivedso h
t tin e
un
society, and that her character
at the railway station, I w
remarks which I stated were made
rmustw:
ahnadv eexsctai
excitement
etnht I em
mnousdtohuabvte, bruatnacmieid
o I amidst
tesohaernrrad.
ucoh
ebmu
!tie;
can only say I don't think anything more d
of
the
investi.
T'pe Commissioner—But up to the pencil

gation by Mr. Wainwrght you still entertained these sus-
picions ?

Mr. Ruek—Yes. I said when I obtained satisfactory in-
formation that such things had not occurred I would be
satisfied.
The Commissioner—When did Mr. Wainwright com-
municate to you the resalt of his investigation ?
Witness—On the 14th of June.
The Commissioner—Then what did you mean by your
observations on Sunday week as to the supposed drover ?
Mr. Ruck—We went into a house at Southall to get a
glass of ale after a long walk. Two men came in. One of
them said he was going to Welchpool, and I thought it had
something to do with my case. I winked at the fellow who
was with me, and said that if the man had touched on my
case I would send him out of the room, for I knew Dr.
Stillwell had the pull over the man.
The Commissioner—When did you last see Miss Jones ?
Mr. Ruck—The last time was in my own house.
The Commissioner—You are the father of several children
by her?

Mr. Ruck—l am.
The Commissioner—Where are they new ?
Mr. Ruck—l don't know. I have never seen them.
The Commissioner—You have never seen them ! Do you
think they are living ?
Mr. Ruck—l suppose they are.
The Commissioner—What was your motive for locking her
up in the room ?
Mr. Ruck—Because she was drunk.
The Commissioner—When did you first discover any cir-
cumstance which led you to entertain suspicions of your
wife's fidelity?
Mr. Ruck—l never discovered any circumstance to prove
she was unfaithful tome; but on one occasion she threatened
that she would do by men as I had done by women.
The Commissioner—But you never, in point of fact, did
discover any proof of her infidelity.
Mr. Ruck—Oh, never.
The Commissioner—But you have accused her of infidelity
with mere than one man.
Mr. Ruck—l can only say that what I did say has en-
tirely escaped my mind.
The Commissioner—Why, since your mind has been dis-
abused, did you not seek to see her?
Mr. Ruck—l can only state that I wrote her an affec-
tionate letter on the second day after I was at Moorecroft,
and two or three afterwards she promised to come to see
me, but did not. I saw it was perfectly useless to seek to
see her. My wife was willing to come, but the doctors
would not allow her. I had no previous notice of this
inquiry, which I consider most cruel, for everything might
have been suppressed which has now gone before the public.
The Commissioner—Do you recollect anything about
poisoning your dogs ?
Mr. Ruck—Yes ; I put strychnine in the eye of a rabbit,
which I had shot, to poison wild foxes, which abound in
Wales. They would not touch it, and I told the man to
take it away. He thought I said to the boiler. He gave
it to the dogs in their food. Two of the dogs had died.
The Commissioner—ls it not true that you struck and
kicked Mr. Thurston
Mr. Ruck—lt is not true.
The Commissioner—Was he not one of those with whom
you suspected your wife was unfaithful ?
Mr. Ruck—No, I never did. He came to the house on
one occasion, and I requested my wife not to see him ; but
she did not comply with my request. I had no idea there
was anything improper between them.
The Commissioner—The persons whom you did suspect
were strangers—persons on the road—drovers'?
Mr. Ruck—Yes.
The Commissioner—But your suspicions are entirely dis-
Felled ?

Mr. Ruck—Yes.
A Juryman—Are you sorry for having caused your wife
so mach pain ?
Mr. Ruck—Well, I have expressed my great regret for it.
The Commissioner—Will you inform the jury what were
your suspicions about your wife ?
Mr. Ruck—l had a general suspicion that she was un-
faithful to ale.
The Commissioner—With a great many ?
Mr. Ruck—l never said so; she might have been un-
faithful with any one, or with a great many.
The Commissioner—How many did you suspect?
Mr. Ruck—l cannot say. If she had connection with uue
man, she might have had connection with a great many. I
say now there is no evidence to establish one tittle of any
suspicions.
The Commissioner—Why are you more satisfied with the
investiga'ion by Mr. Wainwright than with the explana-
tions of Mr. FisLer ?
Mr. Ruck—Well, I aha a rather positive sort of a gentle-
man, and I wished to have some proofs.
Tire Cotendisioner—What did you drive about the country
for

Mr. Ituck—l had no one in the house to cook my dinner ;
no one but a Welshman and his wife, and I went out a pre:A
deal for my amusement. Then, as to crossing over the
river, there was not tile least danger. Where we crossed
was a ford, and the water was not two feet deep.
The Commissioner—But there is a hit of immorality of
which we have heard—your offer t,.) that past-boy about his
wife.

Mr. Ruck—Olt, he is a notorious liar.
The Commissioner—What is the amount of your pro-
perty ?
Mr. Ruck—l have about £1,500 a-year. I have made
some good investments in land.
The Commissioner—Out of the savings of your income ?
Mr. Ruck—Yes; and by the sale of some laud.
The Commissioner—You were under the impression that
there were valuable mines on your estate ?
Mr. Ruek said he had been, but bad net acted without
the advice of competent persons, and handed in some
opinions in support of his assertions.
The Commissioner—One of the jury wishes me to put this
question—Can you guarantee that these suspicions will
never be revived ?
Mr. Ruck—Most decidedly.
The Commission er—On what terms were you with your
wife before you became possessed of these suspicions?
Mr. Ruck—Always on unhappy terms. I can only say I
was wretched for years. She drove me to drink; she re-
fused to have any intercourse with me.
The Commissioner—You wisk to be separated from her.
Mr. Ruck—Yes.
The Commissioner—Why ?
Mr. Ruck—My wife has no desire to live with me.
At the desire of Mr. James, Mr. Ruck explained with
regard to his alleged aversion to red petticoats. He said
that on one occasion he saw some ladies near Moorecroft
Asylum, and not wishing to meet them wont another way,
but nothing like two miles round. He added—As to my
objection to red petticoats, I may remark, now that I am
asked, my objection to them is that Welsh cows are very
muck frightened by them.
Mr. Ruck's examination being concluded, a short adjourn-
ment took place; and on the re-assembling of the Court,
Dr. Alexander John Sutherland was called and examined
by Mr. Chambers. He said—l am a doctor of medicine,
and a member of the College of Physicians. I have paid
great attention to mental disease. I saw Mr. Ruck in May
and June. I had been furnished with the history of his de-
lusions. On the first occasion he refused to communicate
with me as a stranger. On the second occasion he said " You
must hear my story." He said he thought Mary Jones had
murdered the two illegitimate children she had by him, for
when she was sleeping in the next room with a commercial
traveller lie heard him say, " If you don't pacify him you
will swing for it," on which she came to his room, lay
down by his side, and said, " Dearest Lawrence." He said
that on one occasion he heard Mr. Lloyd go to his wife's room,
and say, "Will you have me?" and she refused him very de-
cidedly. He said two attendants had been employed to
watch him, and that on one occasion he beard his wife's step
come along the passage, and she then bad connection with
the tall attendant. He said that Mr. Barnet accom-
panied them to Reading. Hesaid that Mr. Barnet bad tried
while in the railway carriage to put his foot on Mrs. Ruck,
id
oat
shut
journey,
atl
ee ay! t nhl
eoe
rt
heardaorgi oa ue
people saying, " How strange; sa awascro sms
rhs s
Ruck kr Ri
nufic kd
e' sl t
yl etghsa. t 14!ines
tsitha
the lady who has bilked her husband." He said there were
some drovers on the platform, when one of them made a
remark about Mrs. Ruck, which it is impossible for
us to give. On another occasion he said that
while walking by the river at Reading, a gentleman
came up to his wife and said " W—." I asked him if he
did not resent it. He said no, it was too notorious. Ile
said that on one occasion, while at his house, Mr. Barnet
and his wife drank sherry and he was passed a half bottle of
port. When be tasted it he thought they intended to poison
him, and be left the house. Mr. Barnet and be had a row
in the street, and Mr. Ruck charged him at the station-
house with drugging his wine, and a policeman was
sent to taste it, but said there was nothing the matter with
it. Mr. Ruck said the wine had been changed. He said
that he thought Mary Jones had murdered the children she
had by him, and that he was determined to investigate it.
From the conversation I had with him, I had no doubt he
was of unsound mind. With regard to the present state of
his mind, having heard the whole of the evidence, I think
he is much better than when I saw him in June, but I
don't think he is well. I do not think it would be
veryfacts long
o n safewhich
hletr
rely
alleged intimacy of Mr. Barnet and his wife, and his stating
that he had not torn up his clothes, but that Mary Jones
misgohiasadaenfiraele with respect One
to o f the
had.
Cross-examined by Mr. James—l first saw Mr. Ruck at
the request of Dr. Stillwell. Dr. Stillwell told me he had
delusions about the value of his property, but I do not now
think that was a delusion. I think that intemperance has a
good deal to do with Mr. Ruck's insanity. That is a disease
the most curable, but the most liable to relax.
Mr. James—l ask you, is it a proper course of treatment
to keep a man who has delusions in his mind, the result
of intemperance, for months in a lunatic asylum without
giving him an opportunity of an investigation ?
Witness—l think it would have been better if the inquiry
bad taken place sooner.
utlße-examined—HeDlhredrnwe.triiWinslow
of
fitr:tebehlglweiasrhedmheitxelnndsrn
at
he. made this statement to me volun-
tarily. He said he would make his statement before a jury
bois
m
eNd wife'sn. lo
o went
crueltiesienec finrotdfetdwl iott
wysayn
M
was sorry rthere.
.
Williams's request, to see Mr. Ruck, on the Ath of May
conduct
to her cLarac
him and his wife.yHeesraeldwhaes any
laasndt.
idlssaimidplreswsi whatever andnv:neme r
were
Orranaeerrympe
such
Jones'ser scncthft
Moorecroft
exatid-st
Iset estrangement e
infamous,ment be-
tween
he could never live with her again,
been guilty of gross inWelity hltn. said she had
He Blinded to

her familiarity with Mr. Barnet. He mentioned about
Mr. Barnet putting his feet in the railway carriage on Mrs.
Ruck's. He said that several of the railway officials put
their heads in at the windows and said, "There's the woman
ho bilked her husband." He said that even the stable boys
remarked it, and that when she came to London there was
no prostitute in London more indiscriminate in her acts of
infidelity. He also mentioned about his wine having been
drugged. I regarded these as delusions. I cannot say his
evidence to-day is satisfactory. I don't think the delusions are
entirely removed from his mind. I think after Mr. Ruck's
examination to-day I am bound to say he should be allowed
considerable latitude with a gentle supervision to see if these
hallucinations have in reality left his mind. I cannot take
on myself the grave responsibility of recommending that he
should be set entirely free.
By the Commissioner—His evasive answers are not such
as to warrant me in recommending that he should be set at
liberty. He is no doubt better, and I hope he will eventually
recover.
The Commissioner—The question for the jury is whether
these delusions are still in his mind.

Witness—On that I cannot give an opinion.
The Commissioner—Are the grounds on which be says
his mind has been divested of these delusions satisfactory to
your mind ?
Witness—No, they are not.
Dr. Conolly was then recalled, and stated that having
heard the evidence of the alleged lunatic, the opinion which
he had formed had become modified, but not altered.

Mr. James having objected to Dr. Conolly giving evi-
dence of this nature, and thus usurping the province of the
jury,
The evidence was not pressed.
Mr. Ruck was then recalled by the Commissioner, and
stated in the most positive terms that he had never torn
his clothes, but believed they had been torn by Mary Jones
i
when she was locked up n the dining-room.
This closed the case in support of the allegations of
lunacy; and
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine having summed up the evidence,
The proceedings were again adjourned until :this morning
at ten o'clock, when Mr. Edwin James will address the jury
on behalf of Mr. Ruck, in support of whose case evidence
will afterwards be adduced.

was afraid of a collision between the troops and my officers
if they attempted to put a passenger in irons. My reason
was that soldiers would feel a sympathy for their officers. as
they have done in the streets. The cargo was worth £150,000.
I said to the plaintiff, " I shall have to confine you if you
don't be quiet." That was immediately after saying I was
a landlord. He was surrounded by people on the deck. I
sent the chief officer up to him to bring him down to his
cabin. Mr. Thompson addressed the passengers, saying
tbey ought not to resist the authority of the captain. I said
Mr. Krog had only to express himself as sorry, and there
would be an end of it. He refused to withdraw the expres-
sions. He came out of his cabin, and I sent messages to
tell him he must remain in his cabin. There were no means
of confining him to his cabin but by fastening him up. He
was confined as a refractory sailor would be. He was able
to talk to the other passengers, and played at cards and
chess. Every day I sent to tell him if he would confine
himself to his cabin he should be released. I wrote an
apology, which I thought necessary, but he refused to
sign it. The apology was that he was sorry he had used
the words " that I was a landlord, and the ship a float-
ing hotel." On the 15th of June I released him, on the
representation of the doctor that his health was in danger.
On the sth of June my wife went into hysterics.
Cross-examined—I did not order him to be locked in ex-
cept at dinner time. They could not find the key. I did not
say there was a conspiracy to take the ship from me. I be-
lieve I said there was an inclination among the passen-
gers to upset my authority ; they were most of those
witnesses who were called yesterday—Captain Hunt, Lieut.
Armstrong, Mr. Krog. I can't mention any more names
exactly. I don't call any of them mutineers. I believed
they intended to upset my authority, and that I understand
to be mutiny. They were verging on mutiny. I don't say
that two officers conspired to mutiny. I considered, as soon
as Major Longden said he would support me, that all danger
was over. I put Mr. Krog in irons after that—it was not to
prevent a mutiny. If I was publicly insulted my authority
would be at an end.
Baron Martin—l think the witness has negatived the

plea.
I threatened to pull Lieutenant Armstrong's nose. I did
so because I was in a passion because my wife was in hysterics.
I afterwards apologised to the commanding officer. I did
threaten Capt. Hunt. I told Capt. Green that I was ready
to meet him at 12 paces. I did not do that to prevent a
mutiny. I did not use strong language to the other passen-
gers. I kept Mr. Krog in irons 10 days. I did not expect
a mutiny each of those days.
Reexamined—l did not jeer at Dr. Veale ;we bad an
altercation. I said I thought he was not in a position to
talk to me. I meant because he was wounded. There was
an altercation; with Capt. Green, and I said a blue jacket
was as good as a red one, and I was willing to meet him
at 12 paces. At that time I had been up all night, the
ship had been in danger, and I was annoyed. There were
high words on both sides. I did not release Mr. Krog, be-
cause I considered that my authority would be at an end as
regarded the crew and the stewards. This is the first time
I have had an action against me.
Philip Bonarius and George Cook, the first and second
stewards of the ship, Mr. Smyth, the first officer, and Mr.
Lansbery, a passenger, were called in corroboration, and all
swore to Capt. Hunt, one of the officers on board, having
said, " Turn out the hands, and then we will see who is
strongest." Mr. Smyth described the passengers as noisy,
and said they made the ship more like a pothouse than a
quarter deck.
Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Collier having addressed the jury,
Mr. Baron Watson summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
£375.

(Special Jury.)
BARRITT Y. TUE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon, were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Butt, Q.C., Mr. Stone, and Mr. Cole-
ridge for the defence.
This was an action by a poor woman to recover compen-
sation for injuries she had received through the alleged
negligence of the company's servants.
The plaintiff, Mary Barrett, lived with her husband in
one of a row of cottages on the verge of the Midland Rail-
way, at the parish of St. Philips, Bristol, and opposite the
cottage is a footway across the line. It was frequently the
case that trucks remained on the line, and on such occasions
it was the custom to separate the trucks so as to leave open
the footway for passengers. On the morning of the 10th of
January,lB.s6, Mrs. Barrett had occasion to go into Bristol
on business, and as she was crossing the railway at the path
in question (which was, in fact, the continuation of a foot-
way which had existed before the railway was made), and in
so doing she had to pass through the opening between two lots
of trucks. She saw no engine—heard no engine or any signal
or warning, but immediately the trains closed up and caught
her arms between the buffers of the trucks. The carriages
then opened and she got out, and was removed to the Bristol
Royal Infirmary, when it was found that both arms had been
so badly et ushed as to render immediate amputation neces-
sary above the elbows. She was in the family-way at the
time, and was confined in three months afterwards of a
child which subsequently died ; while, to complete her mise-
ries, her husband deserted her, and she had to be removed to
her friends, poor people, in Cornwall, on whose bounty she
was dependent. It was admitted that the action had been
brought through the kindness of the vicar of the parish in
which she lived in Cornwall, who commiserated her situa-
tion, and assisted her with means.
On the part of the railway company, it was contended that
the accident arose through the negligence of the plaintiff, and
ihe engine-driver and stoker were called to state that she was
seen and called to, and stoo I back for a few minutes, and
t hat on the engine going on again, she ran forward, and got
knocked down through her ow❑ default.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
£4OO.