The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-22 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE VESTRY.

On Saturday a most important meeting of the Mary-
lebone Vestry took place at the Court House, Mr. George
Daniell, churchwarden, in the chair. The meeting was
very filly attended, and besides the borough Members,
Sir B. Hall and Sir Charles Napier, there were present
Mr. Williams, M.P., Sir John M'Taggart, M.P., Lord
Montfort, Sir James Hamilton, Bart., Martin Thacke-
ray, Esq., &c., &c.
Mr. Hoop, the vestry clerk, brought up a communi-
cation from the Board of Management of the North
Western Metropolitan District Asylum, demanding the
sum of 1731. 7s. 11 d., as the contribution of the parish
of SL Marylebone towards the expenses already incurred
with respect to such proposed asylum. Mr. Hood also
laid a communication before the vestry from the parish
of St. James, Westminster, to the guardians of which
parish a similar demand was made, and refused on the
ground that it was illegal.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS said he would move, in reference
to the application in question, " That, in the opinion of
the vestry, the constitution of the Board of Management
of the North Western Metropolitan District Asylum is
illegal, and that their demand should be resisted."
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. FLOOD announced that he had just received a
communication from the Home-office, addressed to Mr.
llume, M.P., and, as it was probably upon the subject
then under discussion, perhaps it would be better that it
should be at once opened and read. Mr. Flood then
proceeded to read the following communication from
Sir James Graham:—

LA W INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, D:c. 20.
The Lord Chancellor sat for the first time to- day since his
attack of illness, in Lincoln's lan Hall. The cause of his
Lordship's sitting was to enable him to give judgment in
several dues that had been heard before him on appeal pre-
vious to his resigning the Great Seal. Long before the hour
appointed for his Lordship to take his seat, one o'clock,
crowds of persons had assembled in the old hall of Lincoln's
Inn, and upon his Lordship taking his seat, the inner and
outer bar were crowded to excess.
His LORDSHIP, who appeared considerably improved in
health, and to have regained his usual cheerfulness, upon
taking his seat, stated that a short time since he had given
several of his judgments to the registrar in writing; but that,
in order that those judgments might be delivered in the pre-
sence of counsel, in case any questions should arise, he would
give them over again.
Just previous to his Lordship's commencing to give his
judgments, a Treasury messenger brought an official box,
which was handed to his Lordship, containing a letter, which
he read. It was rumoured that the letter conveyed informa-
tion to his Lordship that Sir Robert Peel had been again sent
for by her Majesty. After perusing the letter, his Lordship
directed the registrar to call the judgments in the order in
which they stood on the paper :
MANN V. RICKETTS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then gave judgment in this case,
which was heard, shortly before his Lordship's illness, upon
motion to discharge an order made by the Master of the Rolls.
His Lordship was clearly of opinion that the decision of the
Court below was correct, and ordered the appealed to be dis-
missed with costs.
COOMBE V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF LONDON.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then proceeded to give judgment
in this case, which was argued before him some considerable
time since, upon an appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce. His Lordship said the case came
before me after motion to discharge an order of the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce, for the production of documents
mentioned or referred to on the answer of the defend-
ants. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail
as they are fully set forth in the report of the proceedings
before the Vice-Chancellor. The Corporation of London
claim to be entitled by prescription to measure all corn,
grain, &c., brought by the River,Thames, and landed at any
point between Staines-bridge and Yanfleet, and to receive
certain ancient fees in respect of the performance of that
duty. The plaintiffs had landed certain quantities of malt
at their wharf in Westminster, and the Corporation filed a
bill against them for an account of the malt so landed, claim-
ing the accustomed fees. The plaintiffs filed a cross bill
for a discovery, denying the right of the Corporation, con-
tending that if the right existed it was to a much more
limited extent than as claimed by them ; that it was compa-
ratively of modern origin; that the fees had been from time
to time varied, and that there was no ground for the
prescription claimed. The defendants having put in their
answer, the plaintiffs moved for the production of the docu-
ments mentioned or referred to in such answer. When the mo-
tion came on for argument the defendants consented to the pro-
duction of such of the documents as had been produced under an
order of the Chief Baron, Lord Abinger. Secondly, to the
metage, accounts kept by the meters, who were the ser-
vants of the Corporation. Thirdly', to certain books and re-
pertories enumerated in the first schedule to the answer. And
lastly, to the charter of the 6th of James 1., and the subse-
quent charter of Charles. With respect to the case and opinions
it is unnecessary for me to express any opinion ; they were
considered by the Vice-Chancellor to be protected, and the
defendants do not of course complain of that part of the judg-
ment. The first question for consideration relates to the
books of account kept by the corn-meters. The plaintiffs in-
sist in their bill, among other things, that the rates of charge
have varied, and that they will appear after inspection of
their books. The statement in the bill is, that the defendants
have in their possession, custody, or power, divers accounts or
books of account, in which entries have been made of all corn
&c., measured by the corn-meters during a long period of years,
together with (among ether things) the fees and wages re-
ceived for such measuring, and that if such books of account
were produced, it would thereby appear that among other
things the rate of fees, and wages, and rewards claimed
and received on account of the metage aforesaid, and
the labour incidental thereto, have from time to time varied.
The bill, therefore, charges the possession of these documents,
and that they relate to the matters in dispute in this suit—
namely, among other things, the metage, and the fees and
wages paid in respect of it : if they exhibit a variance in the
amount of the rates paid at different periods, it is obvious
that such evidence would be material for the plaintiffs
at the hearing of the cause. The defendants, the
corn-meters, in their answer, admit the possession of
these books of accounts, and say—not positively—
to the best of their information and belief—that
it will not appear from them that the fees and rates of charge
have varied, and they further state that these accounts or
books of account, contain material evidence for the Corpora-
tion, and that they are intended to be used in support of
their claim, but the material question is, whether they do not
also contain, by the alleged variance of charges, evidence for
the plaintiffs. This is denied only according to the
information and belief of the defendants. In Ban-
nestyne v. Leader, 10th Simons, the Vice-Chan-
cellor of England considered, and I think properly,
that it was not sufficient in a case of this kind to
swear merely to the defendant's belief. It further appears
from the answer that the examination of the documents of
the defendant, the corn-meters, had been imperfect, for in
another part they set out the names of certain places where
the measurement had taken place out of the city of London,
being, as they state, all that they had met with, but they
add that the accounts are numerous, and that
there may be many others besides those they have
mentioned. The number of the documents is not a sufficient
excuse for an imperfect examination of them, as the Court
would, upon a proper application, allow the necessary time
to prepare a sufficient and satisfactory answer. The same
objections apply to the answer of the Corporation. With
respect to the town-clerk, it does not always very distinctly
appear when he is meant to be included under the descrip-
tion of these defendants, but if he denies at all
that the accounts will show that the payments have
varied, he states that only according to information
and belief, and there is sufficient also in his answer to show
that if he has examined the accounts the examination has
been partial and imperfect. lam of opinion, therefore, that
these accounts must be produced. The next question relates
to the books and repertories mentioned in the first schedule,
The defendants, the Corporation, and their town-clerk, say
in their answer that, save as therein mentioned, they deny
that they have in their possession any book or books re-
lating to the matters in the bill mentioned, except that
there are in the custody or power of the defendants certain
written books or repertories, set forth in the first schedule,
which contain entries of divers matters and things which the
defendants believe form material evidence as to the exclusive
right of metage, and which they intend to use in support of
their right. And, in a subsequent passage, they ex-
pressly admit that the books and repertories, men-
tioned in the first schedule, contain copies and ab-
stracts, or extracts, from documents relating to the
measuring of corn and grain by the meters ; and they admit
the possession of such books and repertories, but they deny
that the plaintiffs have any interest in them ; and further
they deny, to the best of their knowledge, information, and
belief, that if they were produced, it would appear by
them that the right had commenced within the time
of legal memory, or that they contain, or would fur-
nish evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs •, on the con-
trary, they say they are advised and believe that
they contain entries which they are advised and believe
are most material evidence in support of the right of
metage, end which they intend to make use of in support of
their exclusive right against the plaintiffs. There is in
these passages a sufficient admission that the books and re-
pertories set forth in the first schedule relate to
the matter mentioned in the bill. The only question, there-
fore, is, whether any sufficient reason is assigned why they
should not be produced The defendants deny that the plain-
tiffs have any interest in them, and further they deny, to the
best of their belief, knowledge, and information, that, if pro-
duced, they would show that the right had commenced
within time of legal memory, and that they would furnish
evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs do not
claim the right to the production of the documents
on the ground of their having any interest in
them in the ,lommon acceptation of that word, but as con-
taining evidence in their favour in support of the allegations
contained in the bile, and this is denied by the defendants,
the Corporation, and the town-clerk, only according to
the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, which,
as I have already stated, I do not think sufficient. They
farther add that these books and repertories contain, as they
are advised and believe, entries which form most mate-
rial evidence of their exclusive right of metage, and which
they intend to use in support of their right : but this will
cot entitle them to withhold the documents, unless they
also deny with sufficient certainty (which they do not), that
they contain evidence in support of the case of the plaintiffs.
It was further objected that the bill only charged that these
books related to the matter in question, and that it was
not alleged that, if' produced, they would establish the case
of the plaintiffs, and that it was only admitted by the answer
that the accounts related to the matters in question in the
cause. But this admission alone will, prima facie, entitle
the plaintiff to inspect them. Smith v. the Duke of Beau-
fort, Storey v. Lord Lennox, Tyler v. Drayton, and other
cases have decided that point. It is not necessary that more
should be stated in the bill, or that more should be admitted
by the answer. It was also said that the documents were re-
quired merely to negative the case of the Corporation of London,
and that the plaintiff had no right to require the production
for that purpose ; and the case of Bolton v. the Corporation of
Liverpool was cited as establishing that position ;
but the ground upon which the production was there
refused seems to have been, that the documents were re-
quired merely for the purpose of ascertaining whether they
contained anything tending to disprove the title
of the Corporation, not for the purpose of proving,
as in the present case, the facts alleged in the bill, and
which, if established, would defeat the plaintiffs' claims.
Here the plaintiffs charge affirmatively that the pay-
ments have varied at different periods, that they
will be shown by the accounts when produced, and the state-

" Whitehall, Dec. 18, 184:5.
" Sir,—Although my position at the present moment in
this office is peculiar, yet I am unwilling to leave your letter
without an answer, especially as
,volt and the vestry of St.
Marylebone express a wish to be informed of the result of my
communication with the Poor-law Commissioners before I
resign the seals of this department.
"By the 7th and Bth of Victoria, c. 101, s. 41-45, the
Poor-law Commissioners were empowered to form districts o:
parishes in the metropolis, for the purpose of providing and
maintaining asylums for the temporary relief in destitute house
less poor. The provisions of the Act were fully debated in
Parliament, and the power of forming the districts was given
to the Poor-law Commi• sioners without hesitation or appeal.
"The Commissioners, after a careful deliberation, adopted
a plan for the division of the entire metropolis and its
suburbs into six districts, each consisting of several unions
and parishes, represented by a single Board of Management.
The orders forming these districts, and prescribing the mode
of election, and the duties of the Board of Management, and
of their officers, have been issued by the Commissioners in
the course of the present year.
" All the parishes comprised in these orders have acquiesced
in the arrangement, and have elected managers, except Mary-
lebone, St. Luke, Chelsea, and Camberwell.
"The Secretary of State has no official power of interfe-
rence with the arrangement adopted by the commissioners ;
nor is he rendered by the Act of Parliament responsible for
their decision with reference to this subject.
" The responsibility rests with the Poor-law Commissioners
alone. They have acted deliberately, and on a general view
of the arrangement best suited to the entire metropolis.
" If the parish of Marylebone have any objections of detail
which they wish further to urge against particular provisions
of either of the orders of the Commissioners, I have ascer•
tained that the Commissioners are ready to recei▪
ve them, and
to bestow on them the most attentive considerati▪
on.
"If the objection be to the entire arrangement, as well in
principle as in detail, the whole subject might be referred to
the investigation of a Parliamentary Committee at the com-
mencement of the session; and the Commissioners inform me
that they are prepared to justify their plan. The case of
Marylebone must be taken in conjunction with the general
scheme, and cannot, in justice, be considered separately.
" I have gone thus at length into the matter, which does
not fall immediately within the control of the Secretary of
State, even in present circumstances, because I was unwill-
ing to appear wanting in the respect due to the Marylebone
vestry, or negligent in my endeavour to remove a misunder-
standing which I regret.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your
faithful servant,

~ J. G. GRAHAM.

(Signed)
" Joseph Hume, Esq., 111. P."
This letter was ordered to be entered on the minutes,
and to he considered on Saturday next.
Mr. WILLIAMS, M.P., rose to give his cordial support
to the resolution of resistance which had been proposed.
The reason he advised this course was that the Poor-law
Commissioners were doing everything they could to
bring Marylebone anti other independent parishes
throughout the country under their fangs. The reason
the Poor-law Commissioners were so desirous to get
independent parishes under their control was, that there
should not be a comparison between the diet given to
the poor of those parishes and poor-law unions.—(Hear.)
Mr. H. C. WILSON cordially concurred in all that had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Coventry ; but in con-
nexion with this subject he wished to say a few words
on the conduct of the Hon. Members for the borough of
Marylebone, who, for the first time for many months
past, he now saw present.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Wilson) was one of those who would not say that be-
hind the back of the Hon. Members that he was not
prepared to say to their faces.—(Hear, hear.) He would
say, then, that he believed, if the Members for the
borough had done their duty to their constituents, the
parish of St. Marylebone would not have been placed in
its present position with the Poor-law Commissioners.
—(Loud cries of " Hear.") He (Mr. Wilson) spoke more
particularly with respect to the Hon. Baronet behind
him (Sir B. Hall).—(Hear.) He was free to admit that
they had no right to expect so much from the Hon. and
Gallant Commodore, Sir C. Napier, when they con-
sidered his general habits, and his imperfect knowledge
of all their local affairs, and therefore to some extent the
Hon. and Gallant Commodore was exonerated. There
was a probability, from the present state of political
affairs, of a great change, and he (Mr. Wilson) thought
that those gentlemen who aspired to be the representa-
tives of the largest and most influential borough in the
kingdom ought to devote a greater degree of attention
than had been devoted by its representatives recently.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear ") He again repeated it,
arid he felt that he had the general support of his
brother electors in making the assertion, that on whom-
soever the representation of Marylebone in future de-
volved, there was a greater degree of attention to Parlia-
mentary duties necessary.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir B. HALL rose, amidst some slight confusion, to
address the vestry. The Honourable Baronet said,
after the remarks which had fallen from Mr. Wil-
son, he hoped he might be permitted to say a few
words in self-defence.—(Hear, hear.) It was at all
times painful to advert to a serious personal and domes-
tic ealamity, but, in doing so, he begged to say that he
did not wish to conceal from himself the fact, that his
recent inattention to Parliamentary duties had been
most unsatisfactory, and he begged to assure them that
it had been equally unsatisfactory to himself as to his
constituents.— (Hear, hear.) He begged to state, how-
ever, that his apparent inattention did not result from
his own neglect, but from calamities over which he had
no control, and which human foresight could not have
prevented. Gentlemen were aware of the course he
(Sir Benjamin Hall) had pursued when he first became
elected for that borough, and after his second election also,
and be thought it must be palpable to them, when they
viewed his previous conduct, that he had not willingly
and wilfully neglected their interests. He begged to
remind them that there were times and circumstances
which would prevent any man from performing great
public duties.—(Hear.) Last year a domestic affliction,
and at the commencement of the last session a serious
personal accident, caused him (the Hon. Baronet) to be
placed in that unfortunate position.—(Hear.) With
reference to the probable political change which had
been alluded to by Mr. Wilson, he (Sir Benjamin
Hall) begged to say, be that change whatever it
might, he should not deviate from the straight-
forward course he felt he had hitherto pursued. With
respect to a political change, he (Sir B. Hall) was of opi-
nion that no material change would take place, and that
it would be left for those who had produced the present
crisis in the affairs of this country to quench the fire
which their own bad conduct had created.—(Hear, hear.)
He believed that Lord John Russell would not take
office with the inevitable prospect of being turned out
immediately, but that he would leave it to those who
had created the evil. With reference to the question
before them, he cordially agreed with the Hon. Member
for Coventry that they should offer a most determined
resistance, and as soon as the next session of Parliament
opened, he would not fail to use his best endeavours to
support their local Acts and privileges unimpaired.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER next rose. He did not think
that he was deserving of the censure which had been
thrown upon him by the vestry. He would venture to
assert that no Member of the House of Commons had
been more attentive to his Parliamentary duties than he
had been since he had represented Marylebone.—(Hear,
hear.) If the gentleman who had addressed them and
called him negligent meant that he was so because he
had not come 400 miles to attend a vestry meeting on the
corn-laws, then he pleaded guilty, for he had previously
promised to attend a great meeting held on that very
day at Edinburgh on the same subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Wilson had said, if the Members for the borough
had done their duty, this amended Poor-law Bill would
not -have passed. Now he (Sir C. Napier) begged
to say that he did attend to his duty, and opposed that Bill
throughout. He also did so with respect to the Lunacy
Bill, and when he divided the House upon that measure
he did not even get a seconder.(Hear, hear.) It was
true he was not so well acquainted with their local
matters as his Hon. Colleague, Sir B. Hall, tint he begged to
say that he had a head, and he never objected to their
beating their local knowledge into it.—(Laughter.)
He was always ready to receive a deputation of his
constitutenta, but if they meant that to do his duty,
after working hard for five days'and nights every week
in the session, it
was necessary for him to attend there
every Saturday, and also sacrifice his Sunday, he begged
to say that he was ready to resign their representation
altogether. With respect to the
question of the corn-
laws his opinions "'ere known, and he thou-ht no time
a meeting of that borough,
ought to be lost calling
containing as it did a population of 300,000 and up-
wards. He would say further, he thought all the metro-
in order
p,litan boroughs should. have a meeting, and,
to make the d?monstration more coin
P.a., that they
hear.) sh,,uld meet in one day.—(Hear,
Messrs. Joseph Gomm, Kirby, Michie, and other
gentlemen having spoken to the resolution, determining
to resist the demand for supporting the District Poor-
law Asylum, it was carried unanimously.
The meeting then separated.

THE FARMERS AND THE REPEAL OF THE CORN-
LAws.—We have heard from several quarters where informa-
tion of the kind was most attainable, that the farmers who
usually visit Canterbury market did not on Saturday
last express any other feeling on the Ministerial changes
in progress than a wish that some permanent deci-
sion should be immediately arrrived at, and seeing that
repeal of the corn-laws must sooner or later take place, they
would prefer the accomplishment of such a measure at once
to a state of continual uncertainty and alarm. The farmer is
wise in this--there can be no ease or security or indepen-
dence for him until this takes place. The sooner that total
re' of this landlord's law occurs, the better unquestion-
l' rer every cultivator of the soil.—Kent Herald
: ISTOL • SuoJaz-MARKET, DEc. 19.—There is
sorely any business doing in our raw sugar-market, and,
in P'A, produce of an descriptions are difficult of sale, with a
downward tendency in prices.—Bmt• 0/ Mercury.

ment is not po-sitively denied, but only according to infor-
mation and belief in the answer. When documents are charged
and admitted to be in the defendant's possession relating
to the matters in question, it must depend upon the suffi-
ciency of the answer whether the Court will order the pro-
duction of them. The remaining question relates to the
charters of the 4th James I. and the charter of Charles 11.
The charter of the 6th of James the First, either the original
or a copy. but as I read the answer, the original, and the
charter of Charles the Second, are admitted by the defendants,
the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty, and the town-clerk, to
be in their possession, and they clearly relate to the matters
mentioned in the bill ; that may be material to the plaintiffs'
case, for they tend to show that the right is confined to corn,
&c., imported for the purpose of sale. In one part
of their answer the defendants say the charter of the 6th of
James I. was not necessary to their case; but in a subse-
quent part they state that the charter of Charles 11., in
which the charter _of the 6th _of James I. was

recited, forms part of the evidence of their title to the ex
elusive right of metage, but they nowhere, as far as I
can discover, state that they do not afford evi-
dence in support of the plaintiff's case. Beyond the
facts which I have stated there is nothing relied upon as a
reason why the charter should not be produced. There is no
ground therefore for discharging any part of the Vice-Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce's order, and the motion must, therefore,
be refused with costs.

FOSTER V. .
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
dismissing the bill without costs; but, in consequence of some
question being raised with respect to the costs, his Lordship
said he would hear the arguments upon that point on Mon-
day morning.

OLDFIELD . RBE'PT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR alsV COo
gave judgment in this case,
refusing the motion without costs.
HEIGHTON V. GRANT.
His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case, evhich came
before him upon an appeal from the judgment of the Master
of the Rolls. His Lordship affirmed the judgment of the
Court below.

BOOTH V. LIGHTFOOT.

In this case his LORDSHIP gave judgment, also
warming
the decree, and dismissing the appeal with costs.

HILL V. NASH.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment likewise in this
case. It came before his Lordship upon appeal from the
Judgment of the Muter of the Rollo, decidin *Omit eu cob-

jection that had been made to the suit for wait of parties:
It appeared that the plaintiffs were corn factors, and
that, in the year 1840, they entered into a specu-
lation with the defendant /stash, and two other
persons, named Carpenter and Shepherd, to purchase
wheat by that speculation. Eighteen thousand pounds were
lost by the plaintiffs, and they instituted a suit for the pur-
pose of recovering from the representatives of Nash that
sum. The defendants, the representatives of Nash, asserted
that the suit was defective, inasmuch as Carpenter and Shep-
herd were not made parties, but the Master of the Rolls de-
cided against that objection, and from that decision the de-
fendants appealed. His Lordship was clearly of opinion that
the objection .ought to have been allowed, and ordered the
decree to be discharged and the snit to be amended.

JONES V. HOWELL.

His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case, affirming
the judgment below with costs.

BLUNDELL V. GLADSTONE.

His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case, which came
before him upon an appeal from the decision of the Vice.
Chancellor of England, dismissing the petition of Lord
Camoys and a lady named Temple, praying to be
admitted into the possession of certain property belonging
to the testator in the cause called Molyneaux and Horton.
His Lordship was of opinion that the Vice-
Chancellor had voted wrong in dismissing the
petition, and ordered it to be referred to the Master to inquire
whether the estates of Molyneaux and Horton were be-
queathed by the testator, subject to any and what trust, the
Master to state special circumstances

4.0.

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY tVENING, DECEMBER 22, 1845.

belonging to one of the Messrs. Walker, and also a
bunch of keys, their property.
The watch was produced by a pawnbroker, with
whom it was pledged for SL, on the day after the robbery.
Mr. Walker identified it as well as the keys.
The foreman of Mrs. Neil identified the screw-driver
that was in the possession of the accused when appre-
hended.

Prisoner—ls Mrs. Neil here ? The foreman sail she
was not.

Mr. GREENWOOD (to the prisoner)—You may say
what you please, but it is my duty to tell you that what-
ever you say will be taken down, and may be used in
evidence against you.
Prisoner (mournfully)—l own that I broke into the
places. I was walking about in distress, without a penny
in my pocket, and a thought struck me that I must get
some money by some means. I was then by the court,
and I went up and got over a shed, and seeing a window
open I entered the house. It was Mr. Walker's and I
took from there the property he lost. I could not go
back in the same manner I came, and I then went further
on, and dropped from a wall into Mrs. Neil's yard, and
I broke in and took the cash-box, that is all."
Mr. GREENWOOD—You asked if Mrs. Neil was here.
If you wish her to be brought forward she shall he.

Prisoner—My object was to question her respecting
the cash- box. It has been said that a sum of money was
in it, but I declare that it did not contain one farthing.
Mr. GREENWOOD remanded him until Wednesday next.

THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY.
FATAL ACCIDENT.
On Saturday evening an inquest was held by Mr.
Carter, the Coroner, at the Royal Oak, Croydon, on the
body of Mr. James Padden Cross, a respectable master
butcher, of Croydon, who met with his death in conse-
quence of injuries he received at the Dover Railway
station, at Croydon, on the 24th of November.
The inquiry created very considerable interest, on
account of an impression that very generally prevailed,
that the accident which led to the death of the deceased
was occasioned by a want of proper attention and
accommodation to the public on the part of the South-
Eastern Railway Company. Mr. Howell, the superin-
tendent of the traffic department, was present to
watch the proceedings, and to give any explanation
that might be required on the part of the Company.
The following evidence was adduced:—
Mr. W. Jones deposed that he was a butcher, and
residsd at Croydon. On the morning of the 24th of
November, at four o'clock, he proceeded, in company
' with his orother, to the Brighton Railway station, to
meet the up Dover mail train, for the purpose of pro-
ceeding by it to town, to attend Smithfield market. On
their way they met the deceased, and they all proceeded
together to the station, and the train drew up at the
same moment upon the centre line of rails.
A juror asked whether this was the usual place for
the ordinary trains to stop ?—The witness said it was
not. The trains usually stopped on the side rails where
there was a regular platform, but to get into the carriages
upon the centre rails, it was necessary for the passengers
to go round the wall, a very considerable distance, or
else to jump over the wall. He then went on to state
that the deceased, in getting over the wall, fell, and broke
his leg.
The CORONER—Then getting over the wall was not
the proper way to ;.•••,-t to the train ? wrg
not, but they pass,n,;ers IT this early train generally did
so, to save going round the wall which divided the two
lines of rails.
By the jury—lt was quite dark at this time, and there
was no other light than a lanthorn, which the porter had
who attended upon the train. The ordinary trains drew
up on the side rails, and if this train had done so, the
accident would not have happened.
A juror inquired whether there was any platform for
the passengers upon the centre rails?
The witness said there was not. They had to scramble
in as well as they could. He added, that since the acci-
dent there were lights at the station for that early train,
and it also drew up to the side platform,
By the CORONF.R—Had no doubt that the alteration
was in consequence of the accident.
Mr. Howell here said that he was present on behalf of
the Company, and he was ready to give any explanation
that might be required.
In answer to a question from Mr. Hunt, one of the
jury, the witness said that, 'before the accident, the sta-
tion had no lights. That there was no clerk, and the
only person in attendance was one of the porters.
Mr. Hunt said he thought that it showed great
want of care on the part of the Company to have such a
state of things at so large a station ; and that the acci-
dent was in a great measure to be attributed to it.
The CORONER said, in his opinion, these inquiries
were not at all relevant. The deceased appeared to
have met with the accident entirely from his own act;
if the train had gone over him it would have been an-
other matter.
Mr. Hunt said, in his opinion, it formed a very proper
point of inquiry. If the Company had taken the same
precautions as they did at present, in all probability the
accident would not have occurred.
Mr. Howell said that if the deceased had gone two or
three yards on one side he might have crossed the rails
by a passage made for that purpose, and need not have
gone round the whole length of the wall.
A juryman said that might be, but how could he see,
when there were no lights ? Several of the jury ex-
pressed an opinion that, under any circumstances, the
centre rails was a most dangerous place to take up pas-
sengers. There was no platform, and it was, therefore,
necessary so step up a height of eighteen or twenty
inches, besides which the train was very close to the
wall, and a nervous person might very well be frightened
at having to be placed in such a position. They wished
to know why the train could not draw up like the others,
close to the platform, upon the ride rails?
The CORONER said that perhaps Mr. Howell would
give the jury some information upon this point.
Mr. Howell said the jury were aware that Croydon
was a large goods station, and it was customary to have
the goods trucks at night upon the side lines of rails.
It was therefore considered more safe that this early
train should run into the middle line at Croydon, as that
was alway kept clear, but since the accident it had been
arranged that it should run to the side of the platform.
He went on to say that the train in question was not
originally intended to stop at Croydon at all, but in conse-
quence of a requisition to the Company by the butchers
of Croydon, representing the accommodation it would
be to them to get to market, it was arranged that it
should stop for that purpose. Since the accident there
had been lights at the station, and everything was done
to prevent such an occurrence in future.
A juror inquired whether there were many passengers
who travelled by this train ?—Mr. Howell replied, very
few indeed, and those principally on Monday mornings.
The jury said they thought they ought to append to
their verdict a recommendation to the Company to con-
tinue the precautions they had adopted of having lights,
and causing the train to draw up to the platform.
Mr. Howell said this would certainly be done without
any recommendation of that kind. The Company were
always desirous to do everything in their power for the
protection of the public.
The CORONER said there could be no harm in the jury
making the recommendation in question.
One of the jury said he thought that, at such a large
station, there ought to be some one besides a porter to
attend to the train.
Mr. Howell said that a porter, with the guards of the
train, was quite sufficient, and the Company would not
think it necessary to employ any one else. With regard
to having lights, and running the train to the side
platform, he pledged himself that those precautions
should be continued.
Mr. Edward Westall, surgeon, was then examined, to
prove that the death of the deceased was occasioned by
the results of the accident to his system.
The jury then returned a verdict of " Accidental
death," coupled with a recommendation to the Company
to continue their present arrangements at the station,
with a view to prevent the occurrence of a similar acci-
dent on any future occasion.

/Cast London.... .. • • 81.
Grand Junction 31.
Kent .......... • • • • .. 21. 10e.
Vauxhall
West Middlesex .... . • V. 161. pr et.

He 1, d.
100 0 0
46 13 4
100 0 0
100 0 0
63 12 9

Price.

....
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
r. Dividend Amount
le Name of Company. per of Paid. Price,
Annum. Share.
-1
d X s. d. 1 X s. d.
Albion ......... ••• • • 35. 10s. 600 0 0 50 0 0 74
, Alliance Brit. and For. 6 per cent. 100 0 0 11 0 0 20
'' Ditto Marine. ••• • • • 51. per cent, 100 0 0 50 0 6%
Df Atlas .
3, British Commercial
ke
Clericl,Med. & Gen. Life 51. per cent. 100 a 0 210 1 6%
LsD 30s.bs.
31• 100 0 0 10 0 0
r 9s. and 1
3f. Crown ••• • • 1 61.55. bs. j 40 0 0 5 0 0 -
I@
Eagle • . •
;;0 Economie Life.
1000 0 0 250 0 0
n Eng. & Scot. Law ••• • • • 81. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 3
d European Life ••• • • • 534 per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. 20
Freemasons' .. •••• • • • • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 5 0 0
,0 Globe - 14234
Guardian ..... •••• • • • 51. per cent. 100 0 0 36 10 0 51
d Imperial Fire ....... - 12/. per cent. 500 0 0 50 0 0 235
Imperial Life ...... • • 12s. 100 0 0 10 0 0 16%
it Indemnity Marine .• • • it. ch. & be. 100 0 0 513 1 29
11 Law Life •••••• • • • • • • 11- 43. 190 0 0 10 0 0 50
y Legal and General Life - 50 0 0 20 0 0%
n London Fire .••• • • • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 lb%
_, London Ship •••• • • • • 10s. 25 0012 10 0 15%
u Marine - ......... 51. per cent. 180 0 0 15 0 0 10%
's Med.ln vlid & Gen. Life - 50 0 0 20 0 3
s National Loan Fund • • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 210 0 2%
r National Life.... ••. • • Sl. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 93%
Palladium Life • ..... • • 4/. per cent. 40 0 0 2 0 0 2/. 2s.
I. Plicenix
.. ... ..... .. .. 3/. p. et. & bs. - - 210
e Protector Life.. ••. • • • 51. par cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 11. 3s.
.., Provident Life.... •- • • 1/. ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 24
•-' t
Rock Lite.... ••••• • • • 4s. b 0 0 010 0 44
Royal Exchange ...... 51. per cent. Stock. - 180
Sun Fire . - -
Ditto Life It. 6s. - lB
Universal Life
I LIST OP SCOTTISIE COMPANzas, PRICES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of raid. I Price
Annum. Share.
---
X 8. d. X s. d
Bank of Scotland ..... 61. per cent. 100 0 0 171
Royal Bank of Scotland 61. per cent. - 100 0 0 165
• British Linen Company 81* per cent. - 100 0 0 230
r Commercial Bank •• • • 61. per cent. - 100 0 0 166
National Bank 6/. per cent. - 10 0 0 15%
t Union Bank of Scotland 7341. pr cent. -- 50 0 0 9834
Western Bank •••. • • • • 6/. per cent. - 50 0 0 5434
iNorth of Scotland Bank 61. per cent. - 60 0 771,
Clydesdale Bank.... • • 6/. per cent. - 10 0 0 14%
Eastern Bank 5l. per cent. - 10 .0 0 114
Caledonian Bank •• - 210 0 6
• Eclinb.& Glasgow Bank 61. per cent. - 5
i City of Glasgow Bank . 51. per cent. - 815 0 151
Scottish Union Ins. Co. 51. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 14
Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 1100 0 0 10 0 0 1484
Insur. Co. of Sctothid- M. per cent. 10 0 0 All paid. 104
North British Incur.. • 534 il. pr cent. 1200 0 0 10 0 0 28%
• Caledonian Fire Dunn 101. per cent. 1100 0 0 10 0 0 24%
Edinburgh Life Insur. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 19%
Edin. & Glasg. Railway 51. per cent. 60 0 0 50 0 0 65
Ditto, 34 Shares- - bl.percent. 12 10 0 All paid. 1534
Edin., Leith, & Grantn - 20 0 0 20 0 0 21%
Glalgw& Ayrshir Rail. 5/. per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 70
Glasgw& Greenck Rail. 21. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 21
Glsgw & Garnkirk Rail. 51. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 45
Dundee & Arbroth Rail. 6/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 36
Standard Life Assarnee.l bl per cent. 150 0 0 I 2 10 0 3
DOORS. _
1 Dividend 1 Amount
Name of Company, per
1 of I raid. Price.
Annum. , Share.
-__
! £ e. d. 'X s. d.
Commercial •.••.• . • . i 3/. per cent. , Stock. -
East and West India... ;5%1. pr cent., Stock. - 134
East Country ........ 1 1/. per eh. 100 0 0 - 21
L mdon - 11.)
St Katharine •••• • • • 1 5 per cent. ' Stock. 100%
Southampton • • •• • • .: -
; 41. per cent. '5O 0 0 50 0 0 30
CANALS.
.., 1
.5 Dividend
Names of 1 . 'Dividend Names of e.• per Price.
1.7 1 Price.
Companies. 1 r.,• 1 per Companies. 11 Annum.
in 1 i
i 'Annum. ii
, _ -..... X
1 X 1
95 (
Ashby-d-la-Z,113' Al. 70 Mutomrysli 100 bi.
Ashtn& Oltlh 97,51.55. p c 72 Monmouthsh 100 91. 160
Barnsley.. • • 1601 195. 180 Maccglesfield . 100 - 95 1
Basheg.stelte..lool - - Neath ...... 100 201. 365 c
Htknk&Abrg,lso, 5/. 615 Nottingham. 150 12/. 260
Cromford .. • .1100' 18/. 150 Peak Forest. 78 31. 40 I;
Dudley 100! 41. - Regent's ••• • 33 1/. 263 1,,
Derby .. •• • • 1001 81. 103 Rochdale ..• •85 ;`,. 14
ElLsture&Che 133, 4/. 80 Shropshire • • 125 ''' -
Ere Wash llOOl 321. 300 Somrset Coal 150 7/. 10s. 123
Forth & Clyd 100' 4/. 1 - Do.Lk Fd St 12 61. P. e. 11
Grand June tn ' 100 71. 100 St fird &Wore 140 281. 440 (
Grand Union 105 1/. 10e. - Shrewsbury.. 125 151. 230
Glamorgnsh .1172' 13%1. 210 Stourbridge.. 145 201. -
Glstr & lirklyl' 00' - - Strtfrd on Av 79 11. 10s. -
Grantham . • ,150 12/. 100 Severn and/ 26 1/. as. - ji
Huddersfield. 57 - 20 Wye Rail. C
Konnt & ANIL' 39 7s. 6d. 22 Trnt& Mr-}
50 301.
Lancaster .•• 47 1/. 10.1 40 sey, 4 sh. - n
Leeds& Livrp 100 341.- 525 Thams &3led 19 - 10 a
Leicester .. • • ;140 10/. 105 Worestr ki 78 41. 49 h
Lelcstr &Nth; 83 4/. 62 Birming. 17
Leughberogh,l42' 70/. ; 850 Wilts k IStks 67 11. 4s. 11 0,