The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 12, 1861.

,ITISH POSSESSIONS.

LAW 12cTELLIGENCE—( This Day.)

THE ACCIDENT ON THE SOUTH

WESTERN' RAILWAY.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Peers present :—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth
Lord Chelmsford, and other Peers.
APPEAL.-HOPKINSON AND ANOTHER V. ROLT.

This is a competition for priority of preference of mort-
gage securities by the appellant, the public officer of the
Commercial Bank of London, and Mr. Peter Rolt, ship-
builder, the respondent, granted by Messrs. Charles John
Mayer and Co., shipbuilders, Blackwell, over his estates in
Chester, Cambridge, and Blackwell, for money advanced,
and to be advanced to him on account current with the said
bank. Mr. Bolt was also security for several advances by the
bank, and,by the Palladium Assurance Company, to Messrs.
Mayer and Company. On the bankruptcy of Messrs
Mayer and Company, the bank claimed .Rll,lOO balance duo
on account current. Mr. Bolt became purchaser of the
Blackwell property, and claimed a preference on the
balance of the purchase money for money paid by him on
account of the bankrupt to the Palladium Insurance Com-
pany. And the question raised was whether the bank,
the first mortgagee, was preferable in priority to Mr.
Bolt, the second mortgagee, for subsequent advances made
by them to Messrs. Mayer and Company, after the second
mortgage, and after the bank was in the knowledge that
the second mortgage was granted to Mr. Bolt. The Master
of the Rolls, and afterwards the Lord Chancellor, held that
the second mortgage in favour of Mr. Bolt was preferable
to the subsequent advances made by the bank. Against
this decision the bank appealed.

Witness—Yes.

Mr. Rolt, Q.C., for the appellant, contended that the
subsequent advances were made in continuation of the first
mortgage to the bank, and therefore the subsequent ad-
vances were preferable to the second mortgage to Mr.
Rolt for security and money advanced by him to and on
account of Messrs. Mayer and Co., to the Palladium Assu-
rance Company, and others.

The case was not concluded when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

GRUNDY (S➢IITH AND WIFE) T. PEARCE-LODGINGS AT

GRAVESEND-A DELICATE CASH.
This was a judgment summons upon a verdict of the
Gravesend court.
Mr. Kemp (instructed by Mr. Perry, of Ironmonger lane)
appeared for the defendant.

Mr. Kemp said he had two objections to the case being
adjudicated upon. In the first place, defendant had been
bankrupt, and had obtained his certificate ; and, in the
second place, he had, since such bankruptcy, been insolvent
and obtained his discharge.

Witness—l reported it on the sheet.
Coroner—What did you complain of ?

His Honour said this was a judgment summons, and
neither of the defences set up had been pleaded.
Mr. Kemp—Then plaintiff sues as "Grundy," whereas
her name is Smith, and she has been married since she ob-
tained the verdict.

His Honour referred to the act, and decided that he had
the power to amend the summons.
Defendant said he would rather have the matter heard
upon its merits. He did not owe plaintiff any money.
Mrs. Smith (plaintiff) said that upon a certain Friday the
defendant and a woman came to her house for lodgings.
Defendant introduced himself and companion as Mr. and
Mrs. Shepperton. Defendant paid half a sovereign as de-
posit, and took a bed and sitting rooms.
His Honour—Did they sleep together ?

Mrs. Smith—Well, they went into the bedroom together
—there was only one bed in the room, and I presume they
did sleep together. He came twice afterwards, and once
had a hot supper. On both these occasions he slept in the
room with the lady.

His Honour—Defendant, you have heard plaintiff's evi-
dence—is it true or false ?

Defendant—Totally false. I only slept once in plain-
iff's house, and then upon the sofa.

His Honour—Alone?

Defendant—Yes. I went to the house with a lady whom
I had known eight or nine years, and we had tea together,
but I only went to the house once, and then I did not sleep
with the lady, who is a most respectable woman. I never
saw the plaintiff in my life until I met her at the Gravesend
Court.

Plaintiff —What, do you mean to say that you did not
have roast fowl one night ?
Defendant—l do.

His Honour—Where is Mrs. Shepperton ?
Defendant—l can produce her if you will adjourn the
case.

His Honour—Very well, I will adjourn the case. You
will produce the lady, and plaintiff will bring the attorney
who conducted her.case in the Gravesend Court.
Adjourned accordingly.

POLICE IN7kLLI ENCE—(This Day).

MARLBOROUGH STREET.

REPORTED DEATH OF FIVE MEN.
CHATHAM, MONDAY.

ADJOURNED INQUEST—(THIS DAY).
The adjourned investigation into the circumstances
attending the death of Dr. Baly was resumed this morn-
ing, at the White Hart Tavern, Merton.
The first witness called was

Elijah Cook, who said—l am in the employ of the South
Western Railway Company as engine driver, and reside at
Laniport. I have been five years in the service of the
company. On. Monday the 28th ult. I had charge of the
engine St. George, which was attached to a train going to
Portsmouth from Waterloo-bridge. Its first stopping
place would be at Guildford. It left the Waterloo Station
at 5.10 p.m. John Robertson, the fireman, coupled the
engine to the train. I brought the engine up from Ports-
mouth early that morning.
A Juror—And the same tender.

Coroner—Had you on that day coupled the engine and
tender together ?

Witness—No. They had been coupled together for about
five days by John Robertson in my presence. I sal.v that they
were properly fastened. All went as usual till after passing
the pointsman at Epsom junction. I was about crossing
the up Leatherhead 1* when I felt a sudden jerk from
the train. At the same time the engine whistle blew twice,
but not clear. I was standing on the right side looking
ahead towards Kingston. I looked back and saw what
appeared to me to be the whole of the front part of the
train off the line. The tender appeared to bound off almost
at the same time. After making a few bounds she broke
away from the engine and went off the line. I then
saw the tender turn over and fall into the
bridge ihole on the loft side of the embankment. I
could see as I stood the whole of the couplings were
broken away by the light from the fire. The centre was
broken clean through the screw. I think one of the side
chains was drawn out, and the other was broken. The
"jarring" of the train, from being off the rails, would canoe
the breakage. Before arriving at the points nothing had
occurred. Everything appeared to be quite right. I
observed no oscillation. I have need, the same engine and
tender for the last two or three months daily between Lon-
don and Portsmouth.

Foreman—Since you have driven the engine, have you
ever complained of one of the wheels as being defective P

Witness—Some time before Christmas I drew attention
to the defective state of the bolts.
Foreman—Whose attention?

Witness—l believe it was the right middle wheel. Two
of the bolts appeared a little worse in the head. The bolts
were those that pass through the wheels into the tyres.
It appeared as if the bolts had worn a little loose.

Coroner—ln consequence of those bolts being loose,
you did not consider the wheel safe.

Witness—The wheel was as good as ever, but the bolts
wanted to be taken out and replaced by new ones.
Coroner—To whom would the report go?
Witness—To the foreman fitter in the running shed—
John Clayton.
Coroner—Did ho see you after the report ?
Witness—A man was sent to take the bolts out and put
others in. I did not see Clayton.
Coroner—How did you know anyone came ?
Witness—Because I saw the men at work at the wheel
at Nine Elms,

Coroner—What is the man's name?
Witness—l don't know. But I think it's Standing.
Coroner—What did he do to the wheel?
Witness—He took the bolts out and replaced them with
new ones.

Coroner—Were the bolts the same size as the bolts
taken out?

Witness—They were not; they were better and stronger,
and somewhat thicker.

Captain Yolland—Did you notice anything after the job
was done ?

Witness—The screw was left standing out a little.
A Juror—Was that the way to leave the job? Was
that considered to be a workmanlike finish ?
Witness—l don't know. lam an engine-driver, not a
maker.

Coroner—Had you any reason to suppose that the end of
the screw had not entered the tyre ?
Witness—None whatever.
This witness underwent a severe examination by the
coroner and jury, but no new facts were brought out.
The inquiry was proceeding when we went to press.

ANOTHER OUTBREAK AMONG THE CON-
VICTS AT CHATHAM.