Darlington & Richmond Herald. — 1874-04-25 (Darlington, Durham, England)

HOLEER, Q.C., said that this case was tried before Mr Baron Amphlett. at last Durham Assizes, when a verdict for 25/. damages was returned, with leave to the defendant to move to enter a non-snit, on the ground that there was no evidence to go to the jury. He might also move for a new trial on the ground of misdirection in leaving that question o the jury at all. The action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained, as alleged, by reason of the company's negligence. The plaintiff was a passenger from York to a station called Ayeliffe, which was the next station north of .Darlington. The train arrived at the station at 7.55 on a wet foggy night, the rails being very greasy and slippery. It was, therefore, impossible to draw up the train exactly at the platform, and the front part of the train shot past it. The plaintiff was in a third-class carriage next the tender. A little to the north of the station was a bridge which crossed the river, and the parapet of it was formed of some railings. The jront part of the train drew up on this bridge, but as it passed through the station, the station master and some porters cried sut "Keep your 'seats, " or something of that sort ; and it W 46 admitted that the train backed as soon as the Tirbeels could be reversed. The plaintiff, howe-viir, the moment the train came to a standstill, without waiting for an invitation to alight, opened the door of the carriage and stepped out. According to his evidence when be stepped out he went over the parapet into the river, and no doubt he was rescued; but the statements of the defendant's servants and some of the passengers showed that he got out and stood on the step of the carriage. They then heard the guard cry out to him not to get out; and they described him as getting down on to the floor or roadway of the bridge in the ordinary manner; but the space between the steps of the carriages and the parapet of the bridge being less than a foot and a half, and the plaintiff knowing that the train was about to back, he evidently took alarm, got over the parapet, and hung on as the train backed. He then lost his hold in some way, and down he went into the river. Mr Justice Beim thought if the allegations as to crying out to the passengers to keep their seats and backing the train were true, it was difficult to see where the negligence was. Mr Justice GROVE: What was his contention of negligence? Mr HOLIER said it was that this place was not sate, and should have had a higher parapet. Mr Justice Barrr : What nonsense! It was not a place for people to get out. Assuming those two things to be as you state— Mr Houma could assure his Lordship it was so.  _ Mr Justice BRETT : Oh 1 I have no doubt about it. -  Mr Justice ElmovE asked whether the plaintiff heard the cry for the passengers to keep, their seats? Mr HOLICER said plaintiff did not acknowledge having heard it. The view of the learned baron at the trial was that there was not really any case, but he would leave it to the jury. The Court granted a rule in both ways. Role granted.  The Rev. Paxton Hood is engaged on a life o Dr. Watts. An inquest was held on Monday on the body of a soldier named Pearson, who was shot by a comrade, Mealye, in the barracks at Weymouth, during a slight altercation. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against Memlye.  THE ViTA.