The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-09 00:00:00

Metropolitan Railway AggreESioll.

La3t evening a very numerous meeting 0-
f the
owners of property, traders, and inhabitants of tu,o
Euston-road and its vicinity took place at La
of
Assembly-rooms, Gower-street, for the purpose
taking measures to resist the contemplated destruc-
tion of property and other encroachments hi tir •
Metropolitan Railway Company in carrying out the
Additional Powers Bill. A
and
Mr. John Paget, the magistrate, preside3l
was supported by a large portion of influenti
tradesmen and inhabitants.
Mr. CASTLES, of Euston-square, who is a rail Wahl,
surveyor, exhibited a plan of the proposed acre° d
meats of the Metropolitan Railway, which 0110W:s..
the property proposed to be taken from Gesvii:ch
street to the west side of Euston-square, and virlof
he said was by an open cutting, taking the whole
the gardens and forecourts, running up within 8 hei
feet of the houses, so that the inhabitants, if t'the
could live in them at all, would have to suffer :g
annoyance of the steam and smoke from suntt'o,l-;
steam-engines continually under their winu°,l" to
The plan the Metropolitan Company aPPenijo
adopt was to attack the inhabitants along the d
of the Euston and Marylebone roads in detail, :a
thus render them an easy prey. They had Wee: the
in undermining Marylebone Workhouse, and the
church authorities in St. Pancras were not alive be
next public edifice claimed for destruction w°lll,o
St. Pancras New Church. He proceeded to flu
od
that ono of the schemes was to construct a gtellio
depot, and that there could be no necessity Or e,
increased land for railway purposes. He in°lt of
" That in the opinion of the meeting the aruouf,n
land sought to be taken by the Metropolitan ,1%'3
3
way being very much in excess of what they the
possibly require for the legitimate purposes of ose
railway, strenuous steps ought to be taken to oPP
their further progress in the House of Lords."
Mr. NUNN seconded the resolution. that,
Mr. SPENCER went into statistics to shoo - of
even by their own evidence before the committee
the House of Commons, the Metropolitan C 0111334 10
had at present the means of carrying double the
amount of its present traffic, and that when far
other metropolitan schemes were completed, 6°, the
from increasing, it would diminish the traffic °'
Metropolitan line. ad'
Mr. Jack, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Grabant es,
5
dressed the meeting, and Messrs. Wilding and A
ton, of the Tottenham-court and Hampstead roaero
showed how they had defeated the North-West to
and Charing-cross Companies in their endeac°
to destroy their property.
imittee
The resolution was adopted, and a c°71",,„- rcl,g.
appointed to oppose the bill in the House of -"""

RAIL I, 0011
WAY ACCIDENTS.—In. one action—the in
one—against the N orth London Railway, the verdict vr-roo
favour of the company, it appearing that the accident toe
from
the passenger having alighted from the train Whilel(aoio
in motion. Here there was no contributory negligell,c,%;
the
not unfrequently alleged in some cases of this kind) `'"-,ised,
part of the company's servants. The accident, it oPP%-hilt
arose entirely from the passenger'a own rashness.
the London and Brighton Company there was but one sheen
which was brought by the widow of a labourer who
Dover
lot
killed on the line. A verdict in that case was givell''eneer
the company for £l5O. The London, Chatham, and v,-,t to
Company also had but one action against them brouPoel
trial. That was a case of personal injury by collisionitioni
the damages awarded were £250. There were throe 8c agog
against the Great Eastern Company, in which the °rat the
given were respectively £4OO, £2OO, and £2OO. Ageinsitt of
South-Eastern there were three actions—ono arising: and
the accident in the Blackheath tunnel, in Dec., Bu.:„aei
in respect of which a verdict passed against the n°,7gle'
for £1,200 ; and two others which arose out of the P's,too
hurst accident in June last. One of these, in which other
damages were awarded, was brought by a father andratorestf
for the loss of a son, in whom they had a pecuniarifotioll
and who had been killed by an accident on the o'3 by A
lino. The other action was for injuries sustaftleitt
tii
husband and wife; the husband being a clergYinBitrofe'
case it appeared that the medical expenses alone vin the
to £5OO. The verdict against the company, wh°' upiaS 10r
question of negligence, did not deny their liability,to ill
£4,500. The Great Western Company wore defendsllbitect
five actions—one by a widow for the loss of her 118cst Nsb
an engineer, earning £5OO a year, in which a verciie pot'
r
taken, by consent, for £1,850 ; the others wore -r the
sonal injuries, in one of which the verdict WeB re'
company. In the others, the damages giver` lietiteec'
spectively for £5,775, £1,600, and £702 10s. 111 or
tion against the Bristol and Exeter Railway •
diet, by consent, was given for £2,262. Again
land Company there were four actions ; in one of .piorf
vo?dict was given for, £BOO, in respect of a personB`o,ll2ol4l
arising out of the collision last year at Colney getelj'lB.9,oo:
it will be remembered, 300 passengers were more °I.",4)111'
jured. In the second action (also for a personal initpaei
verdict was for £250. In the other two cases the c:Conr‘
obtained,the verdicts. The London and NorthWeete—rf
pany were defendants in 14 actions—one for loss of 't :the
• a. the . •
which the verdict wasfor the company, it appearine ion
accident occurred through the passenger's own inZ. 11;,4
In two other cases the company were successOa an.;
one of them it was proved that the parties (11118,b,,fb-accell.
wife) had before they brought action agreed coal.;
Against tlaeb
jell
a certain sum (which was paid to them bye eleaa7
pany) in full of their claim. This fact, which Ti reotir,
in bar to the action, put them at once out Lido I°.
Another of these 14 cases was an action by e• /ri,h by
the loss of her husband, a carter, who met his The
fordio
accident on the line, leaving two children. 9001,:
given in that case was for £3OO. The other ten neBB-verdic`;
this company arose out of personal injuries. 1:11:‘,0, .C 66"
were respectively for £4,000, £3,500, £B5O, andon
£525, £5OO, £4OO, £225, and £225. Against the h-totione
and South-Western Company there were three 000
—one for the loss of a wife who was killed 11. an
ilrer,
on the Salisbury line, and in which a verdict W8:50 Net
for £5OO ; one for a personal injury, in which fell°.!
awarded, and one in which the verdict was given e
Igor al
of the company. The South Devon Company P erson
fondants in one action only,
injury, and in which £550 damages werei 80,
Great Northern also had but one action again ,l 00:e.
in that, for a personal injury, £450 was siwar" d Tory'
were seven actions against the Lancashire 1100 for to sr
which was for 3
shire Company—six for personal injuries, and °litivelY fo
of life. Thu verdict in the six cases were resPec abet,
£l,OOO, £450, £3OO, £250, £2OO, and £57. In tll.l hiarell;
a widow, for the loss of her husband, leaving tsoeheste
the damages awarded wer £750. Against the
re two ac'
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company there W 8 the I°Bdtet
a mother fort the Tel JO
tions, in one of which, brought by
a son, in whom she had a pecuniary inter° iniBrYs--
was for £2OO. The other was a case of pers' va ease..t)
, 0190
which the damages given were £450. . wee atia
47 in number—are exclusive of those (forunnErought,
which were compromised before actions were',red to
of others, after actions brought, that were ro
tratien.—Railway News.