The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-30 00:00:00

ITIE7FSUN,' LONDON, FRIDAY EVENiNbi, AUGUST 30, 71861.

distance signals are right for me to pass ; and
although I have never had occasion to report the
signals as being wrong, I certainly have not for-
gotten that which is in my work, and which I am
bound to think of and attend to every day:
Alfred Moore—l am a guard in the service of the
railway company, and have been so for 15 years. I
was in charge of the Portsmouth train on Sunday
morning, the 25th inst., which left at 8.28. The
carriage next the tender was a third-class break,
two third-class carriages, one first-class, one second-
class, one second-class break, one first-class coupe,
one second-class, seven thirds, and one third-class
break behind. We had a lamp in rear of the train ;
it was a light. On going to Clayton Tunnel I saw
the distance signal all right. The signal-man
showed a white flag, and so did the signal-man at
the north end. If I had passed the distance flag all
right, and on coming to the mouth of the tunnel,
had been shown a red flag, I should have applied
the break immediately, but such a case has never
yet occurred to me. I sometimes look back after
passing, to see if the distance signal works all right.
I did not do so on Sunday last. There has been a
case sometimes in which the signals have not acted.
In such an instance I reported it at the first station
I came to. I knew a case, four years ago, at the
Woodgate station. The station-master told me he
reported it at Brighton.
By Captain Tyler—l was riding in the break
behind the tender. There were two tail lamps to
the train, as is our usual practice on the main line.
I saw the signal-man on the right hand side of the
down-line, the other side from his box. He was
holding the white flag. I did not see anyone there
about the box with him. There was another guard
at the tail of the train. I saw the distance signal
was all right before we came to it, but I did not
notice it after we passed.
By the Jury—We did not get to Brighton till
8.16 that morning, while we should have left for
London at that time. We had a heavy train up.
I booked the time as head guard of the train.
By Mr. Roupell—The signal-box at the north
end is on the west side of the line, and when we
passed he was standing on the other side of the
line, and would, therefore, have to recross the line
before he could attend to his signals. I do not
think there was a red board to signify another
train was coming. It was an advertised train. I
did not see the excursion train after we left the
station. I made the memorandum as to the making
up of the train on Monday morning, because I
thought I should have to explain it.
By Mr. Evans—lt is safer for the signal-man to
be on the opposite side of the line, and we can see
the flag easier. As the head guard, if I had seen
the red flag exhibited, as I have heard stated, I
should have gone back to find out why the red flag
had been shown. I generally notice the signal-
man stands on the east side of the line to show his

flag.
Joseph Drew confirmed the evidence of the head
guard, except in one special and most important
particular, averring that he was aware the signal-
man stood on the side of the line where the box
stands, which was the opposite side to the one OR
which the previous witness swore he (the signal-
man) had stood on the morning in question.
James Scott—l am an engine-driver in the ser-
vice of the London and Brighton Company, and on
Sunday morning last drove the Brighton excursion
up. I have been in the company's service nine
years. I noticed the time I started from Brighton ;
it was 8.31. I took that time by my watch,
which agrees with the clock in the yard near the
stores. There were seventeen carriages, but I did
not take notice of the breaks. I should think it
was about ten minutes to nine when we got to the
Clayton Tunnel. When I approached the dis-
tance signal I saw it was all right, and just as
we were going into the tunnel he gave his red
flag. I immediately shut off the steam. I should
think I had got abont 250 yards into the tunnel
before I succeeded in stopping the train. I reversed
the engine, and put the break on to stop as quick
as possible. In reversing the engine the train
might back 20 or 30 yards ; but I did not back the
engine at all. We were not going back when the
collision took place. We were standing still, and
had been for about two minutes. I had not time
to send the guard back. I did not see anything
of the other train coming till "he hit her." The
collision knocked me into the tender, but did not
hurt me much. I got up and went back, and saw
broken carriages, and people lying hurt. The
engine was standing nearly upright, resting nearly
on the top of one of the carriages. I have never
looked back to see whether the distance signal at
Clayton has not acted when we have gone over it.
I consider it quite clear by all means to stop as soon
'as possible after I see the red flag, even if shown at
the mouth of a tunnel.
By Captain Tyler—l have been a driver since
May last. My watch was right by the clock
against the stores. I was going nearly 30 miles an
hour. I shut the steam off just as we were going
into the tunnel. I only saw the red flag about
three yards before we got to the tunnel. I think
by reversing the engine I could stop at 250 yards.
although the gradient is down hill. When I
brought the train to a standstill I looked over the
hand rail for a signal to start again from the guard.
I could not see him, it was too dark; nor anybody
else. The engine might have moved back 20 or 30
yards, having the steam against her. I had not
the steam on when the collision occurred, for I shut
it off directly. The buffers were closed, and that
caused the train to move back.
Captain Tyler—lf you shut the steam off, what
should make the train move back 20 or 30 yards ?
You had to push the train up hill that distance ?
Witness—Yes, I think so.
By the Jury—The signal-man was inside his box
on the morning in question, and came out with the
red flag in his hand. We generally expect to see
them standing there, and not coming out of the
box. If the signal-man had had the wheel in his
hand prepared to set the signal I must have seen
him.
By a Juryman—Are you quite sure that you
must have seen the signal-man had he been at the
wheel ?
Witness—Yes, quite sure.
By a Juryman—From how far off?
Witness—About half way from the distance
signal. I never ran past the distance signal before
and had the danger flag shown at the tunnel. I
cannot say whether the distance signal failed to
act on the passing of the Portsmouth train on Sun-
day last. If danger had been shown on the dis-
tance signal I should have drawn up between the
signal and the tunnel, and the train following
would come to a stop on the Brighton side of the
distance signal. I always sound the whistle on
going into the tunnel.
By Mr. Roupell—l could not see the signal-man
if he came up the tunnel with a flag, because our
steam had filled the tunnel. When I first saw him
he had the red flag in his hand.
By the Coroner—We started very closely after
the other train, more so than ever I remember be-
fore. Mr. Legg started the train. I did not make
any objection to starting so soon.
By Mr. Poek—l screwed the breaks tight the
moment I saw the red flag, and was entering the
tunnel. I did not whistle for assistance while in
the tunnel, because it was no use. I let off the
steam, but it did not make much noise.
By Mr. Fryer—l made a report about the acci-
dent. It was made in writing.
Mr. Fryer (to the Coroner)—I ask, sir, for the
production of that document.
Mr. Faithfull objected to give it to the legal
gentlemen, but would produce it to the jury.
The Coroner-Will you produce it to me ?
Mr. Faithfull—Certainly, if you ask for it.
The Coroner—Then I do ask for it.
Mr. Faithfull—Then produced a copy.
Mr. Fryer urged that the original ought to be
furnished.
The Coroner observed that the original report
would doubtless be furnished for the instruction and
information of the jury.
Mr. Faithfull at once sent for the document.
Mr. Fryer then asked for the daily report of the
working of the engine, and the return made to the
foreman.
Mr. Faithfull said he felt bound to interpose,
and hoped that some regularity would be observed
in conducting the proceedings. Whatever docu-
ments the jury required they should have, but he
could not, acting on behalf of his clients, consent
to documents being used for the purposes of cross-
e xaminatiou, which might bo prejudicial to their
interests, or, for what he knew to their wishes,
and as they could not be demanded in a court of law.
he objected to their being obtained in the coroner's
court for the purpose of getting up a case.
Mr. Fryer objected to go on without the docu-
ments.
Mr. Faithfull said he would place them before
the jury.
The Coroner thought that the time of the Court
ought not to be occupied with the discussion. Mr.
Fathfull had said he would only produce the papers
to the jury, and therefore he (the coroner) ordered
them to be furnished at once.
Mr. Faithfull—l wish you, sir, distinctly to un-
derstand that I am most anxious, on behalf of the
company, to produce every information that may
elucidate this case. The pa, ers that have been asked
for are privileged communications, and while, ae I
have said, I will furnish them to you and the jury
for information, I decline to produce them for the
purposes of cross-examination.
The Coroner—l am aware thatin a civil action it
might reasonably be an objection to produce docu-
ments which could be construed into privileged com-
munications, but a criminal inquiry was not affected
in a like-manner. (Addressing Mr. Fryer)—l have
required their production, and 1 understand the

order to be refused. (To Mr. Fitithfull)—Will
t you produce these documents ?
Mr. Faithfull—l have not any documents to pro-
' duce.

The Coroner noted this answer, and
Mr. Fryer then objected to continue his case
without the documents referred to.
The examination of the witnesses was then pro-
ceeded with, but it was merely a reiteration of facts
aiready detailed.
Mr. Pook objected to Mr. Faithfull taking fur-
ther part in the proceedings, as being in contempt for
for disobeying its orders ; but the Coroner ruled
that as a higher tribunal (the Court of Queen's
Bench) must settle the question, Mr. Faithfull was
at present entitled to appear.
In the course of the afternoon some discussion
arose as to the presence of certain attorneys, who
were, as alleged, acting without proper instructions.
The investigation was protracted till a very late
hour, and was again adjourned.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIVERPOOL, Aug. 28.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)

TOWER AND OTHERS V. R.kWLING AND OTHERS.

Mr. Temple, Q.C., Mr. Bett, Q.C., and Mr. Per-
ronet Thompson appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr.
Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Vernon Lushington for the
defendants.

This was an action brought by the owners of the
collier brig Palmyra, 270 tons, against the owners
of the schooner Edith, to recover damages
for injuries sustained by the brig on the 16th of
March last, when the two vessels came into collision
off the Yorkshire coast, not far from Whitby.
The plaintiff's case was that on the voyage from
London to Sunderland the brig, on a very dark
night, the wind being W.S.W., was sailing close-
hauled, when the lights of the Edith were seen half
a point on the starboard bow, about a mile off; that
the Palmyra immediliely ported her helm, in com-
pliance with the rule of the Merchant Shipping
' Act ; that the Edith wrongly starboarded instead
of likewise porting her helm, and thereby rendered
inevitable the collision which immediately ensued ;
and of which the result was that the Edith was cut
down to the water's edge, and soon after sank, the
Palmyra being also much damaged that with diffi-
culty she was towed into Sunderland. The case
for the Edith was that she was on her voyage
southwards, close-hauled, with the wind S.S.W.,
when the Palmyra was seen ; that, being unable to
lie near to the wind, she continued her course, as
she had a right to do ; and that it was not until
the collision became inevitable that her helm was
starboarded to ease the blow. The Edith's people,
however, admitted to some extent a conversation
between the respective masters at the time of the
accident sworn to by the crew of the Palmyra, to the
effect that on the master of the brig charging the
Edith with having improperly starboarded when
she first saw the Palmyra, the master of the schooner
reproachfully inquired of his mate why he had star-
boarded, to which the mate replied that the brig
was crawling across the Edith's bows. In addition
the mates of two other vessels which had been off the
same part of the coast about the same hour produced
their logs, and proved that the wind had then been
as alleged by the plaintiffs.
The learned Judge summed up, when the verdict
was given for the plaintiffs, the amount of damages
being referred to arbitration.
'Phis case occupied till past 6 o'clock last night.

for the plaintiff ; Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. J. A.
Russell, for the defendants.
The plaintiff was an Irish cattle drover, and,
having to take cattle into Yorkshire, he engaged
trucks at Skipton for that purpose. A dispute arose
as to the number of trucks which were necessary
for the purpose, and as to the payment to be made
for such trucks. The plaintiff paid for his trucks;
but a companion of his with whom he associated
did not, and on the money being demanded for the
latter the plaintiff, as was alleged, interfered, and a
scuffle ensued with a servant of the company named
Barker, which led to the plaintiff being given into
custody.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £lO5.
PROSSER V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE