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

Metropolitan Railway AggreEsion•

Last evening a very numerous meeting c't
owners of property, traders, and inhabitants of '13,0
Euston-road and its vicinity took place at Laws° of
Assembly-rooms, Gower-street, for the purPOseue.
taking measures to resist the contemplated &strait,
tion of property and other encroachments hi
their
Metropolitan Railway Company in carrying °tit
Additional Powers Bill. and
Mr. John Paget, the magistrate, preside' tial
was supported by a large portion of inntiel3
tradesmen and inhabitants.
Mr. CASTLES, of Euston-square, who is a rail.
surveyor, exhibited a plan of the proposed alerted
meats of the Metropolitan Railway, which sh°"er..
the property proposed to be taken from avgbici,
street to the west side of Euston-square, and NYi; of
he said was by an open cutting, taking the vil°'-fot
the gardens and forecourts, running up within
if
they
feet of the houses, so that the inhabitants if too
could live in them at all, would have to stlffertioo
annoyance of the steam and smoke from sn°Ar-;,10.
steam-engines continually under their vfirl to
The plan the Metropolitan Company apPef-Lre
aine
adopt was to attack the inhabitants along the „a
of the Euston and Marylebone roads in detail, :lea
thus render them an easy prey. They had suceFfe the
in undermining Marylebone Workhouse, and the
church authorities in St. Pancras were not alive
id be
next public edifice claimed for destruction w°ll good
St. Pancras New Church. He proceeded t° o
that one of the schemes was to construct 3 gthi3
depot, and that there could be no necessity fored,
increased land for railway purposes. He
" That in the opinion of the meeting the anlotlijoil,
land sought to be taken by the Metropolitan can
way being very much in excess of what they the
possibly require for the legitimate purposes ° 050
railway, strenuous steps ought to be taken to °Pp
their further progress in the House of Lords.

Mr. NUNN seconded the resolution.
Mr. SPENCER went into statistics to saoi,
of
even by their own evidence before the coml.-nit°. e
sny
the House of Commons, the -Metropolitan Comp
had at present the means of carrying double the
amount of its present traffic, and that When far
other metropolitan schemes were completed, so f the
from increasing, it would diminish the traffic of
Metropolitan line. aa-
- Mr. Graham

Jr. Jack, Mr. Johnson, and -•- a Se11'
dressed the meeting, and Messrs. Wilding au „ds,
ton, of the Tottenham-court and Hampstead r°;ra
showed how they had defeated the North-Wes „0
and Charing-cross Companies in their encleal'
to destroy their property.
resolution was adopted, and wee
The a coup
rag,
appointed to oppose the bill in the House of L°

_
--
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.—In tiO -
n_t„ on!
one-against the North London Raoilnweaya,ethe verdict as
favour of the comas
pany, it appearing that the aecideut
from the passenger having alighted from the tra (atil°
in motion. Here there was no contributory Ilegligefooll°
in whil,e 11
••
nottunfreq.uently alleged in some cases of this Ith",,,e- refl'
theieLcedh waosnbaron
arose
of the company's servants. The accident, it skr-inSt
nd
ght Brighton
s the
London
from the passenger'a own rashness.
CWordopwanoyf
kwihll
on the line. A verdict in that case was givell,;TWer
the company for £l5O. The London, Chatham, 311,„bt le,
,
Ce mpan y also had but one action against them bre" and
trial. That was a case of personal injury by collisiogitioo6
tahlearbeowinaesrbsvu thoonheal.ciabei
130:it
the damages awarded were £250. There were three 3n3cges
against the Great Eastern Company, in which the d,nl;til,
given wore respectively £lOO, £2OO, and £2OO. Ag3.etit
South-Eastern there were three actions-one arlsii3g6,soa
the accident in the Blackheath tunnel, in Dee', 18;01
in respect of which a verdict passed against the c staple
for £1,200 ; and two others which arose out of the pOO
hurst accident in Juno last. One of these, in whiicothet
damages were awarded, was brought by a father aou,""teteot,
for the loss of a son, in whom they had a pecuaisrY,,ll3,o9'6
the co-.
and who had been killed by an accident on
line. The other action was for injuries
husband and wife; the husband being a clergYls°,,,,' (Ante':
case it appeared that the medical expenses alono
to £5OO. The verdict against the company, fa
question of negligence, did not deny their uts
£4,500. The Great Western Company were deftia-batl'
five actions-one by a widow for the loss of her 'all; 'ett'6
an engineer, earning £5OO a year, in which a Irerler pe
taken, by consent, for £1,850 ; the others Were d for th
sonal injuries, in one of which the verdict We' re re-
company. In the others, the damages give In
spectively for £5,775, £1,600, and £702 10s. le a '43r.'
SUStainedio tbigi
tion against the Bristol and Exeter .RailWai
diet, by consent, was given for £2,262.
land Company there wore four actions ; in one ef ivied
ve-:dict was given for £BOO, in respect of a persol3-
Nibere,
arising out of the collision last year at Colney sa
more Or le )019
it will be remembered, 300 passengers were
jurod. In the second action (also for a arsenal iy,„jo'l
verdict was for £250. In the other two cases
obtained,tho verdicts. The London and NorthWeEee-filifei
pany were defendants in 14 actions -one for lose °;bitt th"
whichtho verdict wasfor the company, it a carieg
PP we" 10
accident occurred through the passenger's eve' 1
e sfs-' d
In two other cases the company were sue used s' t
one of them it was proved that the parties (hut Ace"
wife) had before they brought action agreed CO0;
a certain sum (which was paid to them by
es :Rade,
pany) in full of their claim. This fact, which our'
t of c for
in ba •,1 to the action, put them at once oli id n
Against th
bieu
Another of these 14 cases was an action by s ~tn°ll:l';t
the loss of her husband, a carter, who met his
r7,(10,e verd't
accident on the line, leaving two children. The
given in that case was for £3OO. The other ten 050' yerdsc:o,
this company arose out of personal injurieS. rrA.BOO,
were respectively for £4,000, £3,500, £B5O, yetw-00
£525, £5OO, £4OO, £225, and £225. Against ea. sctiQa
and South-Western Company there wore three
oeeicle",!
-ono for the loss of a wife who was killed by e_11,,,0 give;
on the Salisbury line, and in which a verdict "x",-)50
for £5OO ; ono for a personal ,in {tot°
e')
awarded, and one in which the verdict was gin wl et°
of the company. The South Devon ComPeeY_
eC
in Great
that, N
foraorthe Northern
in one action only, which 1,733 for:'
or. h°
fondants
injury, and in which £550 damages were g;nivet it'
wag yor-;
noraslosnoalhiandj
injury, £450
e actionlva g [l5. TPirr°
were seven actions against the Lancashire a' fooos
d oae hi
shire Company-six for personal injuries, and ctivelY
of life. The verdict in the six cases wore reePhee ether,
1;
£l,OOO, £450, £3OO, X-250, £2OO, and £57. Is chid ©r,
a widow, for the loss of her husband, leaving° 5270schestoic,
the damages awarded wer £750. Against -51_ two eoi
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company there Avtletio
ftol the veluifj
lions, in one of which, brought by a mother
• - interes
a son, in whom she had a pecuniary °nal 5eD
was for £2OO. The other was a case of pers toe ea Ii0t)
which the damages given were £450. Th.°. 0 100 q
47 in numbor-are exclusive of those (follWstetigh"
end
which wore compromised before actions wereforro to ,"
of others, after actions brought, that wet') re
tration.=-Railway New,.