The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-14 00:00:00

RUTLSY V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,

This was an action brought by the same plaintiff, to
recover the value of certain goods that were alleged to
have been destroyed through the negligence of the ser-
vants of the Company.
It appeared that on the 19th September, last year, the
plaintiff sent some linen goods by the railway to Dover,
and while passing through ShakspPare's Tunnel, some
sparks from the engine got inside the truck, and sot the
hale containing the property in que.s.ion on fire. The
defence was that the goods were not properly and securely
packed by the plaintiff, and it was admitted by one of his
witnesses that there were a number of holes in the oil
cloth placed over the truck, and this, it was alleged, was
the cause of the mischief.

The jury Found fur the plaintiff—Damages, IV.
March 13.
CIVIL SIDE.

(Before the Loan CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
HAIIARRoN IL THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY cONIFANY.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the
defendants the value of certain stacks and farm-buildings be-
longing to him, and which were destroyed by fire, owing, as he
alleged in the declaration, to the servants of the Company neg-
ligently conducting a certain steam-engine upon the line of the
railway, by which means a spark from the chimney fired his
stack, and so caused the damage.
The defendants pleaded that they had used due care and cau-
tion, and therefore that they were not liable.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, in his address to the jury, said
that the present action involved a point of very great import-
ance to all persons who had property adjoining a railway, as
the question to be deeided being whether they were to be sub-
jected to have that property totally destroyed through the
working of the railway, without being entitled to compensa-
tion for the loss they so suffered. He then proceeded to state
that the plaintiff was a farmer, residing at Sallinge, near
Dover, and at the time of the projection of the South-
Eastern Railway, the Company, under the provisiOns
of their Act of Parliament, purchased from him some
portion of his land fir the purposes of the railway, which
passed quite close to his barns and homestead. The plaintiff
had frequently complained to the Company of the danger
arising from the trains passing so close to his property, and
requested them to adopt some measures to protect it, but'
without effect, and at length, in the month of May, in
last year, while one of the trains was passinp, a piece
of burning coke or coal was driven out of the
chimney of the engine, which lodged on the top of a barn,
the thatch of which ignited, and before the flames could be
extinguished, property to a considerable amount was totally
destroyed. The important question to be decided was,
whether, although the Company had an Act of Parliament
which entitled them to work upon this railway, and which of
course they c uld not do without the aid of locomotive en-
gines, yet if these engines, by reason of their emitting fire,
could not be used without danger to the property of others, the
using them under such circumstancee, does not amount to neg-
ligence, and render the Company liable for any damage that
might be thus occasioned, and he submitted that it was not
becersary to prove any specific negligence. The Learned
Sergeant went on to say that he should be able to prove, that
mesas had been taken upon other lines of railway by placing a
wire guard over the top of the chimney of the engine, or by
having a plate perforated with holes is front of the smoke box,
to prevent burning coals or ashes coming from it, but upon
this line these precautions had been altogether neglected, and
this he submitted was another proof of negligence, and under
all the circumstances he expressed a confident opinion that the
jury would consider his client entitled to a verdict.
The agreement for the sale of a portion of the plaintiff 'a
land, consisting of two acres and some odd roods and poles, to
the Company, for 3501., was then put in.
The Learned Counsel then called evidence to prove his case.
The plaintiff's case being concluded,
Mr. Sergeant Suss then addressed the jury, and said that
all the Company for whom he had the honour to appear de-
sired to have, on the present occasion,, was, that there should
be a full and fair discussion of the merits of the case, and
that nothing more than justice shonld he done. They only asked
the same protection to which any other class of her Majesty's
subjects was entitled, and'he wassatisfied that upon the evidence
that had been adduced, the.. jury would be of opinion that the
plaintiff had not made our• any case, and that the defendants
were entitled to a verdict. He submitted that the accident was
chiefly to bo attributed to the carelessness of the plaintiff in
placing his stacks se near the railway, and to his neglecting to
cover his barn with tiles instead of thatch, which he could have
done at very trifling expense, and which would have entirely
protected his property from any injury of the
character now complained of. The plaintiff in
his declaration charged the Company with having
canted the mist.hief by the negligent and careless
manner in which their engine had been worked upon the line,
but he contecded that this had not only not been proved, but
that it had been absolutely negatived ; and he submitted that
-upon the declaration of the plaintiff the Company were entitled
to a verdict. The Legis'ature had given the Company the
power to use the engines upon the line—they were authorised
to do so, and they were merely following their lawful occupa-
tion in a proper and lawful manner, when this occurrence took
place ; and there did not appear to be the slightest pretence
for saying that there had been any negligence on the part of
the servants of the Company. It was perfectly well known to
the Legislature at the time they granted the power to this Com-
pany to work the line, that the mode by Which they purposed
to do so was by the use of engines, propelled by
steam which was generated by fire ; that there must be vivid
combustion, and that the engines must pass along the high-
way male by the Company, and by the side of the property
along the line ; and he submitted that it would be monstrous
to make the Company, under such circumstances, liable for
the result of an accident which had occurred in the lawful
carrying out of their undertaking, and without the least
proof of any negligence or carelessness on their parts, or for
which they were responsible. The Learned sergeant, on be-
half of the plaintiff, had attempted to urge that it was not
necessary to prove any specific act of negligence; but he must
be well aware that ,in the case of Aldridge v. the Great
Western Railway Company, it was distinctly laid down by Lord
Chief Justice Tindal, Mr. Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice
Coltman that, in a similar case to the present, the plaintiff
could not recover unless'hegligence was proved. The Learned
Sergeant proceeded to state that it had been attempted to
show that the Company had been negligent in not providing
the wire guards or plates that had been referred to ; but he
submitted that it was very doubtful, upon the
evidence, whether those contrivances were of any
real service, as it appeared that although a trial
had been given to them, they had on most of the lines
been entirely discontinued, and he concluded by again ex-
pressing his opinion that, under all the circumstances, the de-
fendants ought to have a verdict.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 8001.

TAYLOR V. TL( SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action of a similar character to the last, and it
will therefore be unnecessary to go into the detail..
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
8941. 14;.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, March 13.
THE CROOME MURDER.

The. trial of the ten men for the murder of Thomas Staite,
at Croome, on the night of the 19th of December last, was
resumed this morning, before Chief Baron Pollock. At the
adjournment of the Court last night, the jury were locked
up fur the night, provision being made for their accommoda-
tion at the county Courts. The trial was resumed at the
early hour of eight o'clock this morning, at which time, on
the Court being opened, there was again an awful crush for
places, and the Court was crammed to excess throughout
the day.
The day's proceedings commenced with the examination
of witnesses called for the purpose of showing that several
of the prisoners had, during their incarceration, expressed a
desire to make confessions to the officers of the gaol. Mr.
Stables, the clerk to the county prison ; the Rev. W. Ad-
lington, the chaplain ; T. G. Curtler, Esq. one of the visiting ma••
gistrates ; and one of the turnkeys were called for this pur-
pose, and separately examined. These statements by the
prisoners were, under the d►rection of the magistrates, subse-
quently taken down in writing, and were now produced as
evidence against them.

The.pris—oners' Counsel (Mr. Godson, Q.C., and Mr. llud-
dlestone) objected to the admission of these documents, on the
ground that the statements were made in the hope and ex.:
pectation of pardon.

Mr. LEE and Mr. WHITEHOUSE argued contra, and a good
deal of di,cussion ensued, which ended in the Judge ruling
that the statements might be read.
They were accordingly read by Mr. Be lamy at length,
and being of a very voluminous nature a good deal of time
was occupied thereby. It would be impossible to give any-
thing like a sketch of thesi statements within reasonable
limits; suffice it to say, that the several confessions impli-