The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-28 00:00:00

DREADFUL RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT

LEA3IINGTON PRIORS.

THREE PERSONS KILLED.
LEAMINGTON, SATURDAY.

A sad and fatal accident has just occurred about
half a mile from the town, on the loop line of rail-
way between Rugby and Leamington. The down-
train, which was due here at 10.25 a.m., consisted
of the engine and a tender, a break-van, a second-
class, a mixed, and a first-class carriage, a horse-
box, and the guard's van. The accident hap-
pened just after leaving the Radford-bridge, where
occurs one of those sources of danger, a double
curve, somewhat like the letter S.
From the statement of one of the survivors, it
appears, that on reaching 150 yards from this curve
some premonitory symptoms were indicated by the
" jumping" of the engine, when the attention of the
driver was drawn to the factthat one of the springs
supporting the locomotive was broken. The steam
was then let off, when the engine began to displace
or break the chairs, and turn up the rails for about
50 yards. The engine, with the tender, ran off the
line, down the embankment, through the fence, and
embedded itself in a, ploughed field belonging to
Mr. J. Stanley. There were four persons on the en-
gine and tender, two of whom, an engine-driver and
stoker, were killed on the spot, and a third, another
stoker, died on being taken into the Warneford
Hospital.
The manner in which the men met with their
death seems most singular. On the engine and ten-
der rushing down the embankment, the draw rod
and coupling irons were wrenched out or broken
from the first carriage after the tender, which ap-
peared to have been turned completely round with
the shock, as it lay with its head portion facing the
end of the train. The carriages on the top of the
embankment ran forward until the fourth carriage
came abreast of the engine and tender, when they
all fell over, and the,fourth carriage capsized on to
the engine and tender. Henry Kite, the stoker,
was caught by the left leg and arm, between this
carriage and the engine, the body lying on the fire
box. The arm of the poor fellow was literally torn
off. Another engineman, named, Pilkington, a fine
fellow, 22 years of age, was also jammed between
the carriages, and his back broken by the force and
weight of the mass lying upon him. On being re-
leased from this position the upper portion of his
body fell over. The driver, George Ricketts, was
killed on the spot, and leaves a wife and one child
at Coventry to regret his loss. But the second
stoker lay for some time crying for help, being
scalded by steam as well as crushed, but, though
alive when removed, died on reaching the hospital.
The passengers; during the moment of excitement,
scrambled through the doors of the carriages, which
now formed the roof, as every carriage was more or
less upset. The first and fourth were turned com-
pletely over, the former on its right side, and the
latter on its left—caused apparently► by the sudden
fall in the embankment through being ploughed up
by the engine and tender. The front of the break
van was completely shattered, the end of the second
was also sent in by the shock.
The passengers were not muchinjured, and were
enabled to proceed to the town or the station, to
be sent forward to their destination.
The bodies of the two men killed were conveyed
on trucks to the Town-hall, and that or the stoker
lies at the Warneford Hospital, waiting the coro-
ner's inquest, which will be held this day (Monday).

GREAT FIRE AT LISSON-G.ROVE.

LOSS OF SIX LIVES.

The following are additional particulars to what
we published on Saturday :—lt appears that the
fire broke out in a ten-roomed house belonging to
Mr. John Rufus Reeves, proprietor of an eating-
house and refreshment-rooms, situate at No. 36,.
Great James-street, Lisson-grove, Paddington. The
building in which this calamitous affair occurred,
although consisting of only ten rooms, was rather
higher than the general run of houses of the same
class of architecture, and it was adjoined on either
side by similar structures, and, as will be seen, the
whole width of the street did not prevent the flames
from rushing across the road and firing several of
the houses opposite, as well as two or three others
in Charles-street. So fiercely did the fire spread
at one time that every house in the immediate vici-
nity appeared to be on the point of being destroyed-
About a quarter past one o'clock on Saturday
morning a police-constable, named Peter Hobbs,
belonging to the D division, whilst passing along
his beat, perceived a lurid glare shining through one
of the windows of Mr. Reeves's premises. The con-
stable seeing at the same time that smoke was issu-
ing from differentparts of the premises, became con-
vinced that the house was on fire, and without a
moment's delay he sounded an alarm in the usual
way, and sent off for the aid of the Royal Society's
escapes and engines. Some of the neighbours at
once brought a ladder to the place, and pending the
time necessarily lost in sending for the escapes, it
was attempted to be used to save the inmates, con-
sisting of nine persons, who made their appearance
at the upper windows, and were crying for help.
Unfortunately this ladder was hardly tall enough
to reach the top of the house. The proprietor of
the building, at the risk of overbalancing himself,
managed to lower fromthe window a female named
Wreford, who was carried down the ladder and re-
ceived no material injury. In the course of a few
minutes afterwards the shouts of the spectators
clearly indicated that the Royal Society's escapes
had entered the street, and that there was every
probability of all being saved. Conductor Hall had
hardly time to affix his machine in front of the blaz-
ing building, when he was succeeded by .another
conductor, named Horne, with another escape of the
society. The former managed to get out two chil-
dren, who were nearly suffocated. Having handed
them to some of the bystanders, he returned and
was in the act of carrying Mrs. Reeves down the
ladder when the flames shot out of the ground floor
windows, and ignited the escape. The conductor,
though exposed to such imminent danger, behaved
in the most cool and intrepid manner. The flames
were even rushing across the road, and were firing
in rapid succession five houses on the opposite side
of the street, as well as several in Charles-street.
Nothing less than the total demolition of Mr.
Reeves' premises and every soul remaining in
them, could for a moment be doubted, and to
add to the tragedy, the conductor could be seen
with Mrs. Reeves clasped round the waist, but un-
able to descend with her, cm account of the fury of
the flames, and a portion of the escape being de-
stroyed. This caused the two persons—the con-
ductor and Mrs. Reeves—to be thrown off the
ladder, and both fell with fearful violence to the
ground, they having first alighted upon the head
of a policeman, who was so fearfully injured
that he was obliged to be removed to the hospital.
Hall's hands are very much burnt, and he is
internally injured, but it is hoped not fatally. At
the instant the escape took fire, the conductor was
in the act of carrying down a child, who was so
fearfully burnt as to be compelled to be taken to
the hospital. Everything was there done for it
that humanity or surgical skill could devise, but
without avail, and the sufferer only survived a few
hours.

The other escape man made an endeavour to
rescue the remaining inmates with his short or
upper ladder, by placing it on the penthouse of the
adjoining house, but the different floors and roof
fell in almost simultaneously, and the unfortunate
creatures became buried amidst the burning
timbers.

The engines of the parish, two in number, and
three of the C district of the London brigade, under
the direction of Mr. Staples, the foreman of the
station, having arrived, this powerful force and the
parish engines went to work in a manner to elicit
the approval of all present, but they were unable
to get the mastery over the fire until the premises
were totally destroyed, the contents consumed, and
serious damage done to several houses. The total
loss is very, considerable, and is thus officially re-
ported by Mr. Braidwood :
No: 30, Great James-street, Lisson-grove, Mr.
John Rufus Reeves, eating-house keeper—house of
ten rooms—burnt down and six lives lost. The
cause of fire unknown. Contents insured in the
County Fire-office—the building unknown.
No. 29, ditto, Mr. Allen Sharp, greengrocer.
Contents not insured. Considerable damage by
water, fire, and removal.
No. 31, Mary Bucksey, tobacconist. Building
and contents damaged by fire, water, and removal.
Insured in the Union Fire-office.

No. 39 (opposite), Mr. J. W. Rayner, pork-
butcher. Front of premises damaged by fire. In-
sured in the Sun•office.
No. 38, ditto, Mr. Joseph Shaw, shoemaker. Si-
milar damage.
No. 37, ditto, unoccupied.—Front scorched. In-
surance not known. _ _

Nov 39, Charles-street, Mr. J. G. Cooper, dealer
in old building materials.—Contents and building
unknown if insured or not. _

uild-
ingisio. an4ao,
dalmacalgeaend, cboynfeficit.eir
waterer
contents ater,
Contents not insured ; building in the Union
Office.
The following is a list of the persons burnt to
death :
Mr. J. R. Reeves, aged 45 ; Miss Christina
Reeves, aged 8 years ; Jane Reeves, aged 41 years ;
Frederick Reeves, aged 3 years ; Mary Jones, the
nursemaid; and the infant child of Mrs. Reeves.
The bodies, when extricated from the ruins, were
removed to the
dead-house to await the coroner's
inquest, which it is expected will be held this day
(MotlaY).

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 26.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

;Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Campbell and
a Special Jury.)

THE WESTERN BANK OF SCOTLAND V. NEEDELL.

Mr. Bovill and Mr. Murray conducted the case of
:he-bank, and Mr. Wylde and Mr. Aspland that of
the defendant.

The action was brought to recover £17,171 14s.
9d. upon 14 bills of exchange discounted by the
bank between January, 1856 and April, 1857, for
the firm of John Monteith and f Glasgow,
and of which firm they alleged the Co.,defendant, Mr.
Needell, a gentleman of fortune, who had carried
on business up to 1850 as a calico printer in Lon-
don, and resided at Kingston Russell-house, Brid-
port, Dorset, was a partner, or-had been a partner,
and had never publicly notified his withdrawal. It
would, therefore, follow thatlas John Monteith and
Co. when made bankrupt on the 7th of November,
1857, owed the bank, which stopped payment two
days afterwards, no less a sum than £446,000, the
question of Mr. Needell's partnership involved that
gentleman's liability for the whole amount, and
not merely for the £17,000, the subject of the
action.

The case of the bank rested entirely on the evi-
dence of one witness.

Mr. Taylor, who said he was assistant-manager
of the bank froin November, 1852, to the end of
1854, and manager from that time to the 15th of
October, 1857, the bank stopping payment on the
9th of November following. The firm of John
Monteith and Co., calico printers of Glasgow, kept
an account with the bank, and had large dealings
by way of discount. He frequently saw Mr. John
Monteith, who conducted the business. Mr. Needell
was an individual shareholder in the beak ; but on
the 17th of February, 1853, he transferred 72
shares for £5,406 16s. Bd. to John Monteith and
Co., consisting of John Monteith and John Hodder
Needell, partners, and those shares remained so re-
gistered as belonging to the firm of John Monteith
and Co. In the early part of 1855 the firm, being
largely indebted to the bank, executed a mortgage
of some machinery and stock-in-trade to the bank,
and the defendant signed it. There was a firm,
John and Henry Monteith, of Hayfield, in Derby-
shire, consisting of John Monteith and his younger
brother ; but witness was told distincly by John
Monteith that defendant had nothing to do 'with
that concern. In August, 1857, he saw defendant
in Glasgow two or three times. He called on
witness with reference to the affairs of John
Monteith and Co., of which firm he be-
lieved defendant to be a partner, and in that
capacity spoke freely to him on the subject. Mr.
Needell said that he had not taken any particular
charge of the business for the last year or two, and
he did not know the position of the firm. Witness
urged him to look more minutely into the affairs of
the firm, and for that purpose recommended that
he should come for a short time and reside in Glas-
gow. Witness rather pressed him on the necessity
of raising more capital to carry on the business.
Defendant said he would use his efforts to do so. It
was then arranged that the defendant should raise
£3,000 or £4,000 by bills on the firm of Lupton
and Co. Mr. Lupton was Mr. Needell's father-in-
law. Two or three bills for £4,000 in all were
drawn on Lupton and Co., and carried to the credit
of John Monteith and do. On the 15th Aug., 1857,
witness received a letter from Mr. Needell in these
terms :

"Dear sir,—The enclosed will show you that we have
plenty of funds coming in for our engagements next week,
which are very light indeed. Mr. Monteith will be home on
Monday, when I will take care to come to a definite under-
standing with him as to the way the business must be con-
ducted in future. I find that a great deal has been put right
for you during the last three months, and if you wish us to
go on and do so, we must have money for the bill of £521
145., due to-day at the Union Bank. The other we can
manage without troubling you.
" J. H. NEEDELL."
There was a kind of postscript

There is no possibility of managing this £520 odd in
any other way, and the bill must not be allowed to lie over
on any account. The Union have a rule that When a bill
is not paid duly at maturity, I believe, they never take an-
other from the same parties.

Witness never had notice of the retirement of Mr.
Needell from the firm of John Monteith and Co.
Cross-examined—Witness had heard of Mr.
Needell's retirement since the bankruptcy of John
Monteith and Co. for the first time. Would swear
that he did not suggest to John Monteith the for-
mation of the firm of John and Henry Monteith, of
Hayfield, for the purpose of John Monteith and
Co. drawing on the new firm and the bank
discounting the bills. That result did follow.
Witness would swear positively that John
Monteith did ,not tell him that the part-
nership of Mr. Needell expired at the end of 1855.
To the best of his recollection he did not ask John
Monteith whether he had given Mr. Needell a
written release. John Monteith did not tell wit-
ness that he did not, and witness did not exact any
promise from him that he would not give a written
release without letting him know. Witness did
not say that he did not care for the contract having
ceased. Witness did recollect Mr. Monteith telling
him that Mr. Needell was not connected, with the
firm of J. and H. Monteith, of Hayfield, but that he
continued to be connected with the firm of John
Monteith and Co., of Glasgow. Witness under-
stood that Mr. Needell had acquired considerable
property by the death of an uncle, and desired to
make that property available for the indebtedness
of Monteith and Co. When the bank stopped there
was a liability on bills of J. and H. Monteith to
the extent of £50,000 or £60,000.
Mr. Wylde, in addressing the jury for the de-
fendant, said it was no part of his case to show that
Mr. Needell was never in partnership with Mr.
John Monteith, but he should satisfy the jury that,
as a fact, the partnership ceased on the 31st of
December, 1855 ; and then the only question would
be whether knowledge of its termination was
brought home to Mr. Taylor, the manager of the
bank.

The answers of John Monteith to interrogato-
ries, when examined under a commission in Paris,
were read. The chief points were denied in the
cross-examination of Mr. Taylor ; but, in addition,
the deponent swore that at one interview in 1856
Mr. Taylor said he did not wish it to be known
that the contract of partnership with Needell had
ceased, and that, in the presence of the directors of
the bank, Mr. Taylor, in May, 1857, urged de-
ponent to get another partner in Mr. Needell's
place.
Mr. John Hodder Needell, the defendant, said he
entered into partnership with Mr. John Monteith
at the end of 1848. The firm was "J. Monteith
and Co." in Glasgow' and " J. H. Needell and Co."
in London. In 1850 he ceased to transact any
business, and the firm of "J. H. Needell and Co.'
ceased to exist. He retired to live in the country,
but remained a partner in the firm of " J. Monteith
and Co." In 1852 a, new arrangement was made
between him and John Monteith, and a deed exe-
cuted on the 12th of Nov., 1852, by which trade
was agreed to be continued for a further term of
three years from the Ist of Jan. following, Mon-
teith taking two-thirds of the profits and witness
the 'remaining third. Accordingly the partner-
ship expired on the Ist of January, 1856. One of
the terms of the deed was that the books should be
balanced on the Ist of July in every year. That
was done in 1853, but not afterwards. The shares
were transferred in accordance with one of the
terms of the deed. In January, 1856, witness went
to Glasgow on purpose to get a settlement with
Monteith ; but Monteith asked him to wait until
July, and it should make no difference. In July or
August, 1856, witness went again to Glasgow and
pressed Monteith for a settlement. He showed the
books, and he said the stock had been taken, but
the balance had not been arrived at. He said again
that it should make no difference to witness, and
that he should have his money, although no balance
had been arrived at. 'Witness did receive some
money on account of what was due to him on the
partnership to December, 1855. He went again in
Decembei, 1856, or January, 1857, and again Mon-
teith came to no settlement. Up to the end of 1856
the works at Hayfield belonged to witness's firm of
"J. Monteith and Co." In August, 1857, witness
went again to Glasgow, and saw Monteith on the
same subject. He said he wished to draw out
£3,000 and place it in the firm of Lupton and Co.,
Mr. Lupton being his father-in-law. Monteith
asked if bills would not do. He said if he could
not get the money he thought bills might do. No
arrangement was made then as to drawing the
bills, and he went to the Highlands. In three or
four days he returned, but did not see Monteith
again. He saw Mr. Taylor, in consequence of Mr.
Taylor sending for him respecting some bills drawn
by John Monteith. He went to the bank and saw
Mr. Taylor for the first time in his life. Taylor
made some remark about the bills, and he made
answer, " I ceased to be a parner at the end of
1855." Taylor said, "I do not know about that.
That is a legal question," and went on to say he
would hold witness liable, or words to that effect.
Taylor told him there were £4,000 worth of bills
sent to the bank by J. Monteith and Co., drawn on
Lupton and Co., which were refused acceptance.
He expressed his surprise at the bills having been
sent in unaccepted, and said that he did not
expect £2,600 would be accepted. There were
two bills, one for £1,400, and one for £2,600.
Taylor went on to speak of its being a very
serious matter that Monteith's account should
be so much overdrawn, and said, " Why don't
you come down to look after the business ?"
He told him, in reply, that his engagements
were in agricultural pursuits in the West of
England, and he had no right to interfere. He
504 he W9llld try to get Lupton to accept for