The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENINbi,

THE' TERRIBLE COLLISION ON THE
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

BRIGHTON, TUESDAY NIGHT.
The adjourned coroner's inquest upon the bodies
of the 23 persons who lost their lives by the terrible
catastrophe at the Clayton tunnel on Sunday, the
25th ult., was resumed and concluded this day at
the Town-hall, before Mr. David Black, coroner for
Brighton.

Messrs. Slight, Hawkins, and Faithfull again I
attended the inquiry on behalf of the company.
Mr. Coningham, M.P., was in attendance on the
part of the directors. Messrs. Stuckey, Lamb, and
Fryer again watched the case on the
part of the
friends and relatives of the deceased and injured
parties.
Capt. Tyler, Government inspector, wa3 not in
attendance to-day.
At the commencement of the proceedings the
Coroner reading the following letter, which he had
received from Capt. Tyler
~ Whitehall, Sept. 9, 1861.
My dear Sir,—I am much obliged for your two
notes, the former of which I had not received when
I wrote to you before. Would you kindly ask the
reporters to morrow to correct an error which has
been made in most of the papers in regard to my
evidence on the accident in the Clayton Tunnel,
and which has already led to some misapprehen-
sion ? I have been made to say, in reply to Mr.
Faithfull, that there has never before been an acci-
dent on the Brighton Railway, except one in the
Brighton station ; whereas, Mr. Faithfull's question
on the subject and my reply had reference solely to
that portion of the line which extends between
Brighton and Hassock's-gate. I am not aware of
any previous accident (with one exception) on that
portion of the Brighton Railway, but if I had been
asked about accidents on the whole of the line, my
answer would have been very different. I believe
this is correctly stated on your notes, and has only
been an inadvertent error in reporting Mr. Faith-
full's cross examination.—l remain, my dear Sir,
very truly yours, " H. W. TYLER.
" To D. Black, Esq."

The Coroner then said—l will now ask you, Mr,

Slight, if you are in a position to communicate the
result of the decision at which the board arrived
with reference to the documents mentioned on the
last occasion ?

Mr. Slight—l have been instructed to attend here
by the Board of Directors in consequence of what
took place on the last occasion in reference to cer-
tain documents then asked for. Mr. Scott, the De-
puty Chairman of the Company, then promised to
submit the question to the board at their next meet-
ing. This had especial reference to two documents,
one called " A statement by Wm. Boynett, railway
guard, taken down in writing by one Mr. Turner,
travelling inspector, concerning the journey of the
Brighton ordinary train on the morning of Aug.
25, 1861, and its collision with the Brighton ex-
cursion train in the Clayton tunnel, or some one of
such matters ;" and "A statement made by one
Wm. Butcher, railway guard, taken down in writ-
ing by one Mr. Turner, concerning the journey of
the Brighton excursion train on the morning of
Aug. 25th last." These are memoranda entered in
a private pocketbook by Mr. Turner, and in pursu-
ance of Mr. Scott's promise the matter has been
brought before the board, who have adopted the
following course :
"At a Board of Directors of the London, Brighton,
and South Coast Railway Company, in London, on
the 9th of September, 1861, it was resolved :
" That the Board, while approving the course
adopted by the solicitor of the company with refer-
ence to the production of certain specified documents
to the coroner and jury, assumed to be statements of
servants of the company on the subject of the recent
collision, and which statements they are advised by
counsel they are not bound to produce, nor which,
if produced, could be legally received as evidence ;
yet, being desirous of assisting the investigation by
every means in their power, they are unwilling to
stand on the legal rights of the company, and there-
fore authorise their secretary to produce the docu-
ments required.' "
There was a slight manifestation of applause after
this resolution had been read.
Mr. Slight then said—ln accordance with that
resolution it is now my duty to produce to the Court
that document, which is a memorandum in the pri-
vate pocketbook of Mr. Turner, a clerk in Mr.
Craven's department.
The Coroner—The two documents which you have
mentioned are the only two which are referred to in
the paper which I caused to be served upon you, but
there is also a third, respecting which I wrote to
Mr. Faithfull—naniely, a statement made by Scott,
the driver of the Brighton excursion, called by us,
and as I have it on my notes, " Scott's report.'
Have you got that, Mr. Slight ?
Mr. Slight—After the resolution which was

passed by the Board yesterday, an which I have

read, Mr. Fb.ithfall told us of your wish that that
document should be produced, and I have to state
that I in consequence have applied to the Board for
and obtained their specific instructions to produce it,
which I now do ; and this is the paper you referred
to.

The document was then handed in.
The Coroner—l am very glad indeed, personally,
at this decision of the Board of Directors, and
which I may be permitted to say in my opinion re-
flects great credit on the company. I felt perfectly
satisfied in my own mind from the first that such
would be the result. Ido not want to prolong the
discussion upon this matter, but in justice to myself
I think it is right to make an observation upon one
point, as it is referred to in the resolution of the
Board of Directors. It is averred in that resolution,
with regard to the statements in question, that they
(the Board of Directors) are advised by counsel they
are not bound to produce them, nor, if pro-
duced, could they be legally received in evidence,
It is my opinion, and has been from the beginning,
that these documents are not evidence in themselves,
but the object for which I asked for them, and the
reason why I ordered their production was, that
though they were not evidence is themselves, still
that they were important as enabling the jury to
test the credibility of the witnesses as to the circum-
stances to which they had spoken, and I have yet
to learn that in that way they are not evidence. I
will now read from a book,which is Turner's pocket-
book, an entry, which is as follows
" Aug. 25, 1861, 12 Noon.
"Sunday—Collision in Clayton Tunnel—Wm.
George Boynett, head guard ; Wm. Webb, under
guard; W. Gregory, driver; No. 122 engine. W.
G. Boynett left Brighton at 8 36 with the 8 30
train for London. On reaching Clayton tunnel saw
the All right ' signal. Killick was on duty. When
we had got about 200 yards into the tunnel I heard
the driver whistle very suddenly for the breaks. I
applied mine immediately. Webb says he did so
too. They were both very good breaks and
brought the trainb to a less speed instantly, but
they had Scarcely een applied when a most fearful
crash took place
and found a second
As soon as possible I got out,
preceding train with one
break carriage of the
our engine, and its
zaofneoff,end lodged on
end across the down and the other
the under-guard I met Butcher,
back to
and desired
him to go furtherof
protect our train
while I went to assist the pao. fen. I also de-
sired the signalman to telegrapagehonwno
trains:'
north end
of the tunnel not to admit the
The Coroner, reading his note (pans*"
B,—` And Webb
says, I got out of my break after the crash, and
saw Butcher going back to protect the down train,
and assisted the passengers out, and communicated
with the stationmaster at Hassock's-gate." Here
is the report of John Scott, the engine-driver of the
Brighton excursion train, signed by him, and wit-
nessed by J. A. Molyneaux. It is as follows :
" Brighton, Aug. 25, 1861.
John Scott, engine-driver, reports starting at
8 30 a.m. to-day with the Brighton excursion for
London. On approaching Clayton tunnel, the dis-
tance signal was all right.' When we got to the
mouth of the tunnel the signalman gave us the red
fl I shut the steam off, and reversed the engine,
and put the break on and stopped as soon as pos-
sible. The carriages bounded back three or four
yards with our reversing. I was standing over the
handrail, looking back for a signal, when the fol-
lowing train came into us. After stopping some
time, I ran through the tunnel to the north end for
4,istance, and to pump water into the boiler, and
‘meti went on to London.

"JOHN SCOTT.
Witnese J. A. MOLYNEAUX."
711.wez,lePert made by Butcher is as follows
liarm 'Butcher, under-guard of the Brighton
trairl---I left Brighton at 8 30 a.m. The
signals were all right' at Clayton tunnel, but just
as :the engine approaelied I saw him wave a red
flag. I applied the break, audve stop ed in a short
time in. the tunnel, say 300 yezds. P
When the train

stopped I took off my break, and the train, as I
thought, commenced moving back, so I applied my
break again. I then opened the door and got my
lamp and signal flags and fog signals in my hand,
ready to jump out and go back and protect my train.
Before I had time to jump I saw the other train
coming. I waved the red light to them, but it was
upon us in a moment, and I jumped off to save my
life. I helped a passenger, who had also jumped,
clear of the tunnel, and went back to protect the
' up road. "
It will be observed that this perfectly agrees with
the statement given verbally to the Court, while
Scott's statement differs in some respects from his
evidence, inasmuch as he states that the train
bounded back three or four yards before reversing
the engine.
Wm. Butcher, under-guard of the Brighton ex-
cursion (second) train, examined by Mr. Fryer—l
had not time to go back to the mouth of the tun-
nel before the collision took place. We backed about
30 or 40 yards, to the best of my knowledge. I

can't say for certain whether the train was in motion
at the time of the collision.

By Mr. Lamb—lt would have been very doubt-
whether I could have got back to the mouth of
;he tunnel.

Some question having arisen as to the previous
statement of the witness, the coroner referred to
his notes, when it appeared the witness stated the
train was very nearly but not quite still when the
collision occurred.

W. G. Boynett, head guard, who left Brighton
at 8 36 with the 8 30 train (the third) for London,
was then examined, but no discrepancy was elicited

between.his written statement and oral evidence.

Mr Lamb said they had been fighting about docu-
ments that were not worth the paper on which they
were written.

Mr. Hawkins then produced a return he had pro-
mised to make of the time of departure from Brigh-
ton of the Portsmouth excursion (first) train on
every Sunday it has run during the present year.
The advertised hour of departure from Brighton
was in each case 85. On June 2 the train left
Brighton at 819 ; June 16, 815 ; June 30, 8.10 ;
July 14, 8 12 ; July 28, 8 10 ; Aug. 11, 8 10 ; Aug.
25 (day of accident), 8 28.
Another return was handed in of the time of de-
parture of all the Brighton trains during the four
Sundays preceding the accident. It appeared by
this return that an interval of five minutes took
place between the departure of each train.

Another return was also produced of the number
of passengers passing through the Clayton tunnel
in the previous year. The number was 594,000 on
the up-line and 550,000 on the down-line.
Mr. White, chief officer of Brighton, said this was
all the evidence he had to produce.
The Coroner then summed up the evidence. The
definition of manslaughter by negligence he con-
ceived to b 9 this—that when persons were employed
in occupations from which danger might arise, if
they neglected ordinary precautions, and if on ac-
count of such neglect loss of life occurred, it would
be manslaughter. The degree of caution required
must be measured by the necessity for caution, and if it
should appear that neglect by any individual was
the essential or chief cause of death, it woald nut
excuse any such individual that other secondary
causes in some degree contributed to the accident.
With this explanation he would now call attention
to the locality of the line of railway between
Brighton and Hassock's-gate upon which the acci-
dent occurred. If there should be any conflict of
evidence between the officers of this company and
passengers whose statements were above suspicion,
it would be only right to assume that the weight of
evidence lay with the latter. The Coroner then pro-
ceeded to narrate the facts as they had been estab-
lished in evidence. The delay of the Portsmouth
excursion (first) train was not very material, as if
the rules of the company had been properly ob-
served the accident would not have occurred, not-
withstanding the delay in the arrival of the train.
The Portsmouth train, according to the evidence of
Mr. Legg, the stationmaster, left Brighton at 8.22,
but that evidence was contradicted by all the other
testimony. The other evidence proved that the train
did not leave Brighton until 8.28 or 8.30. The ex-
cursion train was stated by the officers of the com-
pany to have left the station at 8.30 or 8.31, with
the exception of Mr. Legg, who stated that this
train left two or three minutes earlier. The evi-
dence of Holman, the pointsman at the junction,
was that the trains passed him at 8.29, 8.32,
and 8.36. The Coroner then read the evidence

of Killick, the signalman at the south
end of the tunnel. It appeared to him that
Killick had a right to believe that the answer
he received to his message, " Is she out ?" re-
ferred to the second train. The account given
by the signalman at the north end of the tunnel
varied somewhat from that of Killick, but he was
of opinion that Killick's version was the more
credible of the two. Brown admitted that he mis-
took the message, thinking it referred to the first
train instead of to the second, which it actually did
refer to, and his version of the affair was in other
respects unintelligible. Killick appeared to have
done his duty as well as he was able under the try-
ing circumstances of the case—three trains follow.
ing each other in such rapid succession, and the
distance signal failing to work. If the jury be-
lieved the evidence of the passengers respecting the
time at which the trains left Brighton, the conduct
of Legg in starting those trains clearly came within
the definition he had given as to manslaughter by
negligence. It was the neglect of ordinary pre-
cautions—precautions which, according to the evi-
dence of the company's officers, were clearly
pointed out in the rule not to start a train until a
sufficient interval had elapsed for safety. If they
believed that the rapidity with which the trains
were started by Legg materially contributed to the
accident, the company's rule being binding on Legg,
the breach of the rule came within the definition
he had given of manslaughter by negligence—
namely, the neglect of ordinary precautions, the
necessity for the observance of which was apparent
for the safety of the passengers. It would appear
from the evidence that the rapidity of starting the
trains did materially contribute to the accident—
nor was it an answer to any neglect of proper pre-
cautions by Legg to say that if the signalmen had
done their duty the accident would not have oc-
curred, it being the rule of law that the man
could qualify his own wrong. A question might
arise as to how the traffic manager (Mr. Hawkins)
had contributed to the accident by the way in
which the traffic was managed. There was no
definite rule as to an interval of five minutes being
allowed to elapse between two trains, but it appeared
that the ordinary rule observed on the various
railway lines in the kingdom was well known
to railway officials, and he did not think that
blame could be attributed to the traffic
manager for adopting the general rule and ex-
pecting it to be generally acted upon, that rule
being, except at terminal stations, to allow intervals
of five minutes between the starting of the trains.
A question might next arise as to the sufficiency or
insufficiency of the precautions adopted at the tun-
nel. The jury must consider whether the railway by
its traffic manager had fairly adopted all the ordi-
nary improved modes in common use for regulating
traffic. If it had, it would be no charge against the
company to say that there were other new modes
partially adopted on some lines which might be
jurybe would
better than those in use on the Brighton line. The
carefully examine and collate the evi-
dence. They would consider whether they believed
that Leggstarted the trains at more frequent inter-
vals than he ought to have dose. If he did so, and
if, as it would seem, he thereby contributed in any
essential degree to the accident, then, to the best of
his judgment, his neglect of duty would amount to
manslaughter, and would be an offence which must
be left to another jury to try. The next question
was whether thejury believed the evidence of Kil-
lick. If so, that person was merely guilty of a trifling
error of judgment—hardly an error at all, in fact—
arising from his hurry, and not from neglect of
duty. It was not as if he were away from his post,
nor was there any proof that in any other way he
was guilty of negligence. The third point was as
to the working of the distance signal—whether
way contributed to the accident, and
that
whether,in
any
if it did not work properly, Killick, or
any other person whose duty it was to oil and attend
to it, had properly performed his work. It appeared

that Killick had been a signalman for nine years,
and Brown for a longer period. With regard to
Scott, the driver of the Brighton excursion train, a
question arose as to the duty of a driver under such
circumstances in a tunnel. It was given in evidence
that it was the duty of an engine driver to whom
the red flag had been shown to come to a stand as
soon as he could, and to send back his guard to see
what was the matter, instead of going back with
the train. Scott stated that he did not go back, that
there was a slight recoil of the carriages, and that
he might perhaps have gone back 30 or 40 yards.
The evidence, however,showed that it was impossible
to have stopped the train within 200 or 250 yards,
as stated by Scott, but that it must have taken
more than double that distance to have brought
the train up. The jury had also heard the evidence
of several passengers, who stated that the train did
go back a considerable distance, and the un4er-
guard of the train said that the train had hardly
stopped in its backward motion to the mouth of the
tunnel when the collision occurred. The jury might
therefore assume that Scott was mistaken, or that
he misrepresented the fact when he asserted that
he did not back the train. But, although that
might be a breach of the company's rule, it did not
follow that he had been guilty of gross negligence.
Scott was on his engine, his life was in peril, like
the rest, and it was to be supposed that he had done
that which he thought best at the time. The jury
had first to consider whether the general arrange-
ments of the company were such that the accident
did not happen through them. If they were satis-
fied of that they would have to consider the con-
duct of Legg, and if they thought he had broken
the company's rules, and that he had thereby con-
tributed essentially to the accident, he was respon-
sible for his conduct. If they thought that Killick
and Brown had done the best they could, and that
Brown had made a mistake, either from want of
memory or otherwise, still that was not such gross
negligence as would implicate them. Neither did
it seem that Scott, although he had broken a rule,
had been guilty of such gross negligence as to in-
duce the jury to find him guilty of manslaughter.
It appeared to him that the rule of five minutes'
interval was quite a minimum for safety between
Brighton and Hassock's-gate, and that, if time were
to he taken as the measurement, it would be better
to take ten minutes instead of five, so as to allow a
margin for the infirmities of human nature. With
hese observations he would now leave the matter
,n the hands of the jury.

The jury then, at five minutes to 3 o'clock, re
ired to consider their verdict.

After four hours' deliberation the jury returned
into court with a verdict of manslaughter against
Mr. Legg, the assistant-stationmaster at Brighton,
and the following special finding :—" That the per-
sons upon whom the inquest was holden being,
on the 25th day of August, in Clayton tunnel, in
the parish of Piecombe, in the county of Sussex,
while being carriedin a train by the London, Brigh-
ton and South Coast railway from Brighton to Lon-
don, were run into by a certain locomotive engine,
and were thereby mortally injured, of which injuries
they died; and that Chas. Legg, assistant station-
master at Brighton, by his negligence and want of
common ordinary caution in starting three trains—
one at 8 28, one at 8 31, and one at 8 35, in breach of
one of the express rules of the company and of the
usual practice, did in an essential degree contribute
to and indirectly cause the deaths of the persons so
killed. And that one John Scott, an engine-driver,
by mistake, but not carelessly, contributed in some
degree to the violence of the collision aforesaid, by
backing the engine and train known as the Brigh-
, ton excursion train for a distance of 100 yards at
least in the said tunnel. And that by reason of the
hurry arising from the arrival in unusually rapid
succession at the south end of Clayton tunnel of the
three trains mentioned, and the temporary failure
of the distance signal to act on the arrival of the
first of the said three trains, a mistake or misunder-
standing arose, but without negligence, in working
the telegraph signals by Henry Killick and John
Brown between the two ends of Clayton tunnel,
which also materially contributed to the said colli-
• sion. And that the system on the 25th of August,
and for a considerable time previously thereto, in
conducting the traffic of the said railway between
Brighton and Hassock's-gate was defective in not
bringing immediately to the knowledge of the fret&
manager for the time being such departures as hap-
pened from the said rule as to the starting of
trains. And the jurors aforesaid find that the said
Charles Legg did, on the 25th day of August last,
at the place aforesaid, feloniously kill and slay the
persons upon whom the inquest was holden."
The Coroner said that this was in effect a verdict
of " Manslaughter" against Legg, with a special
finding. He wished to thank the jury for the great
patience they had displayed throughout this inquiry.
He had had no opportunity of thanking Captain
Tyler before he went away, but he must say that
they would not have been able to conduct this
inquiry so satisfactorily had he not been present
and favoured them with his practical suggestions
as to the working of the telegraphs and many other
matters.

The inquiry, which has extended over nine days
was then brought to a close.

THE RAILWAY A CC/ DENT AT KEN-

TLS'S TOWN:

A portion of the following appeared in our impression of
yesterday evening : _ _ _

. -
The inquiry was resumed this morning before Mr. Hum-
phreys, the name of the unfortunate man Benjamin Rush-
brooke being now classed amongst those who met their
death on this occasion.

The Coroner maid the signalman Rayner was now in at -
tendance, but he proposed to take all the evidence he could
previous to examining him. For that reason he should
take the evidence of the guard Bridges, and Scott the driver.
The jury then proceeded to the University Hospital to
take the evidence of Bridges, and to view the body of
Rushbrooke. After this had been done the jury proceeded to
Bow, and there took the evidence of Scott, which was to
the effect that the signal "all right" was up at the Kentish-
town station when the train passed.

Henry Rayner, the signalman at the Kentish-town sta-
tion, was examined and cautioned but not sworn. He said,
I wish to be examined. On the 2d of September I was
porter at Kentish-town station. On the arrival of the 6.35
p.m. train from Kew, Fessey went off duty. I do not
remember whether I telegraphed to Hampstead " All
clear." I know that a telegram was sent that the line was
clear.

The Coroner—Who sent that telegram ?
Witness—l don't remember.
The Coroner—Have you any doubt that Fessey had left
at that time ?

Witness—l believe he had not left the station.
Mr. Park—Fessey did not leave till after seven ?

Witness—He did not.

By the Coroner—Fessey's time for leaving was seven
o'clock. The train did not leave till five minutes past, but
Fessey stopped until the train left. I did not telegraph
back that the line was clear. I do not know who did.
Fessey having left it became my duty to attend to the
telegraph. I don't remember receiving any communication
from the driver of the ballast engine as to coming out. I
did not answer him by giving him leave to come out. I

don't remember giving any such permission. (The Coroner
repeated his questions.) I don't remember any communi-
cation from the driver of the ballast engine.
The Coroner—Be careful. Do you mean to say you gave
no permission? Witness—I don't remember.
The Coroner—Did the ballast engine come out of the aid
ing before the 6.3.5 train passed ? Witness—No.
The Conner—How long elapsed between the regular
train passing and the ballast train coming out?
Witness—lt came out directly afterwards. I saw it on
the line directly after the train had passed.
The Coroner—Did you in consequence put up the danger
signal at the platform station.
Witness—The danger signal was already on.
The Coroner—When the 6.35 train passed, was the dan-
ger signal on the platform taken down ?

Witnees—No, it was not.
The Coroner—ls it usual to put the auxiliary signal on
when the train is in the station ?
Witness—Before it arrives there.
The Coroner—Was that taken down ? Witness—No.

The Coroner—Did you continue them up? Witness—Yes.
The Coroner—Why? Witness—Because I had not got
" Line clear" from the Kentish-town Junction.
The Coroner—If the ballast train hal left the siding
without instructions, would it have been your duty as sig-
nalman to take notice of it? Witness—Yes.
The Coroner—Did you take note of it?
Witness—l don't recollect.
The Coroner—Did you do anything to protect the line?
Witness—No ; because the line was protected by the
danger signal, which was left up by my mate. The danger
signals wore on at the auxiliary and the station.
By the Coroner—A little after seven—about 10 minutes,
I received a telegram from Kentish-town Junction of the
line being clear. I had a telegram from Hampstead of
the approach of the excursion train. That was about 15

minutes past seven. I acknowledged it. I blocked over,
" Train on line," and sent it forward to the Kentish-town
Junction immediately after the excursion train had passed.
That was not acknowledged from Kentish-town: Betore
there was time for an answer the accident had occurred. I
had not removed the up auxiliary danger signal at all, nor
did I remove the up main danger signal. When the ex-
cursion train came through they both stood at " danger."
The Foreman—You had not touched the danger signals
at all ?

Witness—No, not at all.
By the Coroner—l have been in the employ of the Com-
pany since January last. I did not hear the excursion
train whistle as it came through the station.
A Juryman—Do you think you should have heard it
whistle if it had been so ? Witness—l think I should.
By the Coroner—l have made a statement to the com-
pany's offices. It was on the right of the accident. I was
asked how the accident happened, and made a statement
which was taken down in writing. I did not make exactly
the same statement then that I made now.
The Coroner—Will you tell me why ?
Witness—At the time I made the statement the same
evening I hardly knew what I was about.
The Coroner—Which is the true one? Witness—This
is the true one.
By Mr. Miller—l did not sign the statement. lam 19
year of age. I was never in the employment of any com-
pany before. I don't remember whether in my former
statement I said I gave permission to the ballast driver to
come out. I was in the hut when the excursion train was
coming. I had no light in my hand. I did not know what
I was about when the accident occurred on account of the
excitement.
By Mr. Metcalfe—At no time between the time that
Fessey left and the collision did I touch the signals. I
cannot remember whether I stated in my former report
that I pulled down the signals, and put them up just as
they were before. (The statement of the report was read,
in which the witness said that he took down the signals
and put them up again.) I did not touch the signals.
Mr. Metcalfe—Do you mean to say that the driver passed
those signals while they were at danger ?
Witness—Yes, I do.
Mr. Metcalfe—Have you not stated in your report that
you pulled down the signals, and that seeing the ballast
train on the line you put up the danger signals again ?
Witness—l don't recollect.
Mr. Metcalfe—Have you not said so ?
Witness—lt is not true.
Mr. Metcalfe—Be careful, and try to remember what you
did say. Witness—l don't remember.
Mr. Metcalfe—What is the difference between your for-
mer and your present statement ?
Witness—This is the true one.
Mr. Metcalfe—ls the difference this—that in your former
statement you said you took down the signals and put them
up again, and that in this you state that you never touched
them ? Witness—This is the true one.
Mr. Metcalfe—But is what I have said what you said on
a former occasion? Witness—l don't recollect.
Mr. Metcalfe—Did you say in your former statement that
the excursion train wee within but a few yards of the signal
when you put it on again ? Witness—l don't recollect.
Mr. Metcalfe—Did you say you took off the danger
signal ? Witness—l might have said so.
A Juror—Were tile danger signals on when the excur-
sion train passed ? Witness—They were.
Mr. Metcalfe—l Emir you again whether on your former
examination you said that you took down the danger sig-
nals ? Witness—l tight have said so.
Mr. Metcalfe—Have you told Mr. Walters (a gentleman
in court) that you give the ballast engine driver permission
to come out?
Witness—l don't cnow. He drew out of his own accord.
Mr. Metcalfe—Dil you tell any body next morning that
you took the danger signals off and put them on again when
it was too late ?
Witness—l don't recollect.
Mr. Metcalfe—Did you say so to Mr. Chubb, the secre-
tary of the North London Company ?
Witness—l don't recollect having done so.
By Mr. Park (his counsel)—At the time I made my
former statement I was in a great flurry. lam quite cer-
tain that at the time the excursion train passed I am quite
sure the danger signals were up. When I received the tele-
gram of the excursion from the Hampstead station the bal-
last train was on the line. As soon as the excursion train
passed I came out of the hut to take off the danger signals,
which were both up at the time. At the time of the pass-
ing of the excursion train the ballast train was on the
crossing not on the siding. When I left my hut the excur-
sion train had passed my station, and the collision took
place immediately afterwards. Although I went to take
the danger-signals off, I did not, as the excursion train
had passed the auxiliary. When I made a statement to
the officers of the company I did not know it was to be
used as evidence. The statement was made to the inspec-
tor of police. It was read over to me, but I did not sign it.
I was formerly in the office of the solicitor of the company,
but retired from it on account of my deafness.
A Juryman—What are your wages ? Witness—Four-
teen shillings a week.
A Juryman—And how long do you work ? Witness—
Fifteen and a half hours one day, and 10 hours another.
By Mr. Pack—l have to attend to the passengers and
their luggage, and to the signals as well.
A Juryman—What i, youL duty when you get a tele•
gram from Kentish-town Junction to say that the line is
clear? Witness—To take the danger signals off.
A Juryman—Did you take off the signals when you
received a telegram that the ordinary 6.35 train had passed ?
Witness—No.
A Juryman—Why ? Witness—Because the ballast
train was on the crossing, and I left the signals up to pro-
tect it.

A Juryman—Did you expect the excursion train at all ?
Witness—No. I had no intimation of it.
A Juryman—But you knew that some excursion trains
were coming ?—Witness—Yes ; but not at that time. My
information was that there were excursion trains to come
between 8 and 9.30.
The Coroner said this was all he had to adduce, and he
would proceed to read the evidence, and then having made
some comments upon it he would ask the jury to consider
their verdict. Having gone through the evidence, the
Coroner said the responsibility rested either with the driver
of the excursion train, who ran through in disregard of the
danger signals, or Rayner, who failed to put up these sig-
nals of danger.
The jury retired at a quarter to six o'clock, and after an
absence of an hour and a half, returned into court with
THE VERDICT.
The Coroner—Gentlemen, are you agreed ?
The Foreman of the Jury—We are.
The Foreman then read the following verdict:—
" The jury regret that there is no alternative, from the
weight of evidence, but to return a verdict of guilty of
manslaughter against Rayner. At the same time they can
not separate without expressing a strong opinion that the
directors and managers are much to be censured in not em •
more experienced persons to fill important situations
apslo
signalmen."
g
rmen."
The Foreman added—There is this rider :
" And it is highly improper for a station master to start
Y
any special train either before or after the specified time of
his instructions from the secretary of the company. That
when the line is obstructed by shunting or otherwise, the
line should be blocked both by telegraph as well as by out-
door signals."
The verdict of manslaughter caused considerable sensa-
tion amongst the auditory, and the censure passed on the
railway companies met with a general approval.
The Coroner then directed his warrant to issue for the
committal of Rayner on the charge of manslaughter. He
was not then present, and was therefore not apprehended,
and we understand that bail for his appearance to stand his
trial will be tendered to-day.
The Coroner having then thanked the vestry for the use
of their hall, which had afforded such excellent accommo-
dation, said as there were so many inquisitions to be signed
he would not at that late hour detain the jury by requiring
them to sign more thin one, and they could assemble to-
morrow to sign the remainder.
Six o'clock this day was accordingly fixed for that pur-
pose, and tho proceedings, with this exception, termi -
nated.

THE ALLEGED M,U_HO RDER IN NEWTON-
STREETLBORN.

The following appeared in a portion of our impression of
yesterday evening :
The adjourned investigation into the circumstances at-
tending the death of the unfortunate woman Cogan was
resumed this afternoon, at the Archer public-house, New-
ton -street.
It will be recollected, when the inquiry was first opened,
that Cogan, who stands charged with the murder of his
wife, was in such a dangerous state, from the wounds in-
flicted on his neck, that he was obliged to be conveyed to
the hospital, where he has remained, under the care of the
police, until to-day.
Cogan arrived from King's College Hospital a few
minutes before two o'clock in custody of Inspector Mac-
kenzie, of the F division of police, and immediately had an
audience with his solicitor, Mr. G. Lewis, of Ely-place.
The Coroner said as Cogan was now present he proposed
that the evidence taken in his absence should be read over,
in order that he might make any statement he thought
prcper.

The evidence of Sarah Harwood, the deceased's sister,
was then read over to her.

In answer to questions from Mr. Lewis, she said her sister
was rather of a hasty temper. She never knew that de-
ceased had been in custody for stabbing her husband. The
deceased was very much attached to Cogan, and she never
knew them to quarrel except when she had been taking
drink with bini.
Police-constable 144 F was next called. It will be recol-
lected that this was the constable who took the prisoner into
custody in Holborn, on the morning of the occurrence, and
his evidence was to the effect that he saw Cogan and his
wife quarrelling previous to the death of the woman, and
also that afterwards he conveyed Cogan to King's College
Hospital.

In reply to questions put to him by Mr. Lewis, he said
—When he first saw deceased with the prisoner she was
wrangling with him. Would swear that when he saw Cogan
in Holborn he did not say " Has your wife cut your throat,"

SEPTE

MBER 11.

1861.

He asked him if he had cut his wife's throat, and he nodded
his hear,

Police-constables 36 and 82 F, said that Cogan was
never asked by either of them if his wife had cut his
throat. The question he was asked was, " Have you cut
your wife's throat."
Mr. Paynter, the surgeon, who examined the body of the
deceased woman, said the cuts on the deceased's throat
could not have been inflicted by herself. The wound com-
menced at the centre of the back of the neck across the
right side of the throat, and tailed off to a mere scratch on
the left collar bone. If the deceased had inflicted the
wound upon her neck herself she could not have thrown
the razor where it was found. The effect of the injury
would have rendered her immediately powerless, and she
would have sunk down, and the instrument would have
been found in her hand or very close to it. He had since
he had given his evidence made a post mortem examina-
tion of the body and found other appearances, which forti-
fied him in the opinion that the deceased could not have
inflicted the injuries by her own hand.

In reply to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Paynter said he thought it
quite impossible for the deceased to have severed what is
vulgarly called "Adam's apple" in her throat, as in her
case, which is by no means common in persons of the age
of deceased, it had partly become bone, and was completely
cut in half. To effect such a cut great violence must have
been used.

Inspector Mackenzie said in an interview with the pri-
soner, which he had on the 12th of August, he asked him
what he (Mackenzie) was to do with his furniture. He
said, " What's become of my wife ; is she remanded ?" He
told him she was dead, and he began to cry. Cogan went
on to say that the day before the murder he had been to a
funeral, and on hid arrival home he asked his wife to go up
stairs. This she refused to do at the time, but afterwards
she came up and inflicted the wound on his throat as he
was lying on the hearth-rug.
_ _

Mr. Lewis asked if the witness remembered that the de-
ceased had been charged with assaulting her husband with
a knife.

Inspector Mackenzie said he recollected something of the
kind, but he thought she was discharged, as the husband
did not appear against her in the morning.

The evidence of the other witnesses on the first examina-
ion, which contained nothing very material, having been

read over,

Mr. Fottescue, house surgeon of King's College Hospi-
tal, described the wound on Cogan's neck when he was

brought to the hospital. The injury could either have been
inflicted by his own hand or by another person. It was in

the position suicidal wounds generally are.
Police-constable 50 F said, on the 3d of August he was
on duty in the hospital. The chaplain was reading prayers
to Cogan, who put both his hands together and said, " I did

not do it I I did not do it; She done it. I've nothing to
forgive, she done it." Cogan the next day said "I was lying
on the hearthrug, and I found her drawing a razor or knife
across my throat. Me and missus had words before we got
up stairs. As soon as I found her cutting my throat I ran
down stairs into Holborn and met a policeman there. I
showed him my throat and he asked me who done it. I
drew my hand across, and said I did it myself." On the
following Wednesday Cogan said " I wish you to tell me
the truth—is my wife dead, and am I charged with killing
her ?" Cogan has repeatedly said "As truo as there's a
God in Heaven, I did not do it. She must have done it
herself." Cogan has also said his wife had been charged
with stabbing him.
A juror asked if Cogan had been cautioned by the police-
man before he made any of the statements that whatever
he might say would be used against him ?
The constable said he had not.
The Coroner said nothing could have been more straight-
forward than the conduct of Inspector Mackenzie. He had

acted throughout the proceedings with the greatest judg-
ment and prudence, and with a spirit of fairness that did
him the greatest credit.
Mr. Lewis said his client was anxious to give his evi-
dence; and having taken the oath, the coroner duly cau-
tioned him. He then said—My name is William Cogan.
On the 2d August I was living at 2, Newton-street. The
deceased was my wife, and I had beeen married to her 11
years. On the 2d of August I had been to my godfather's
funeral, and returned home about five. In the evening
I went out, and on my return home I found my wife ab-
sent. She was out drinking. I met her about 1 o'clock in
the morning. I met her at the door, which she slammed in
my face. I pushed it open, and went into the passage,
when she struck me more than once. I walked to the top
of the street for quietness, I have no recollection of taking
any ale that evening. When I returned home, after a short
absence, my wife was not there ; and as the bed was not
down, I threw myself on the floor near the fire place. I
went to sleep. I don't recollect anything, but I found my •
self down at the door. I have no recollection of feeling
anything in the room. She must have done something to
wake me up. I found, when I got into the street,
that I was bleeding, and got very weak. I
went to the policeman, and made motions to
him to take my wife into custody for cutting me. I was
then taken to the hospital. I never inflicted the slightest
injury on my wife. We generally lived comfortably, but
we have lived separate, and I allowed her 10s. a week. Sie
once stabbed me with a knife in the arm and other places.
I gave her into custody, but I did not appear .gainst her.
She has on previous occasions cut my head by throwing
things at me. When my wife was sober there could not
have been a kinder woman.
An entry from the police charge book was then handed
in. It was as follows :
Mary Ann Stokes Cogan, aged 28—Violently assaulting
her husband by cutting him with some blunt instrument,
Oct. 3, 1860. Discharged, no complainant.
The Coroner having summed up,
The jury retired, and after nearly an hour's deliberation
returned a.verdict of wilful murder against Cogan.