Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 10th May 1851, Edition Town of 1, Page 437, Untitled Article

Page 437
Page 9
9 of 24

On this page

  • Text (3)

      Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      Untitled Article

      badly wounded , and I assisted to take out the bodies of jl tn

      " I was in the next carriage to the deceased , Mrs . Wettenhall . After the train stood still , I put the window down and beard the engine wheels slipping . I suppose the slipping would arise from the chopping of the tunnel and the steam acting on the f * ils . A companion , Mr . Hurry , said to me , ' Haddock , I'll get out and see if the tail lamp is lighted , ' and he afterwards told me it was . I afterwards heard him call and say , ' Haddock , there is so much steam , and it is so dark , keep calling out that I may know where to And you . ' I did as he told me , till I afterwards felt his hat under the window . A guard came by and held a light , and Hurry said . ' Guard , run behind us as fast as you can , and give a signal . '

      I suppose he meant to warn the next train that might come up . I got out of the carriage myself ana gpoke tq Mrs . Ridgway and Mrs . Wettenhall , who were much alarmed , and told them all would be safe . I then heard a train advancing and stepped towards it , putting my hand to the wall . I had got about a carriage length from our own train when the engine of the next train passed me and ran into our train . I heard the engine but could not see it , the tunnel was so densely filled with steam . I stood still a moment , and then observed that the engine was off the rails . I then

      turned round and tried to pass the last train , but the passengers jumping out upon me impeded me . At length I found a tail light in the last train , which some passengers had in one of the carriages , and with that , finding my way much better , I ran with it till I met a guard with a hand lamp and exchanged with him . I then took him , with the red light , to the Frodsham entrance to the tunnel and placed him there to keep other trains from coming up , telling him , ashe valued his life , not to move . I then returned again to the trains , but found the way blocked up with broken carriages . "

      Ultimately the killed and wounded were carried on to the next station , at Moore ; the engine of the first train being then compelled to unyoke and go to Warring ton for water . "lhe evidence given by the officers of the line , who ¦ were examined in order that the causes of the accident might be ascertained , is most voluminous . Mr . Gilson , the secretary to the company , was interrogated as to the arrangements on the line , which were not special , but general , on the day of the accident . By far the most important evidence is that of Mr . Bragge , locomotive superintendent and engineer of

      the Chester and Birkenhead portion of the line . His evidence clearly showed that the cause of the stoppage of the trains was the wetness of the rails , the want of water , and the disproportion of the weight of the engines to the weight of the train . He , however , had thought that he had proportioned the engines to the work they liad to perform . Mr . HJragge Bpoke very highly of the engineers . Mr , Robert Lewis Jones detailed the plans adopted at the station at Chester for the purpose of providing additional accommodation on the race days ; and Mr . Critchly , station master , declared that 20 minutes elapsed between the starting of each train . He also said : —

      " I attached no light to tbe third train , as I expected it wpuld arrive at Manchester long before dark—about eight o ' clock I knew there was a tunnel upon tlie line , between Chester and Walton , hut did not know ita length until tbe night of the accident . Had I known of that funnel I should not have attached lights to the first three trains on account of the intervals between the departure of the trains , which would allow one train to get through before the following truin entered . It rests with me to see that tail-lights » re attached to the trains , if I think it necessary . "

      Prom tho evidence hitherto before the public it does not appear that adequate or any precautions were taken , or tha f any accident was anticipated by the authorities . We await tho yerdict of the jury . Cuptain JLaffan , the Government inspector , has uttended the whole inquest , and taken part in tlio exairiinquons . THE WESLEYAN ( JUAPKL SYSTEM . Lord Cranworth gave judgment on Wednesday upon a ca « c . which embodies tho principal features o { the WVsleyau Chapel system , in relation to j . he Wealcyau 2 teloim «» r 8 .

      In July , lft 14 a chapel then recentl y bnijt at Holt , in Norfolk , was convey ed to trustee ** ju tee , that certain iium » nece-aary to the repairs of the chapel should be mined by mortgage . Thin uhiipel w »« to b « UButl by tho preachers upjioiuted by the MclhodiHt Conference , enntuituted under « deed duU-d in 17 « 4 , and framed under flie direction of John Wesley . At the name time , 1814 , provision was made that ut any time tho majority of the truHtees might , if they thought lit , Hell this chapel mid build or puichiiMi one more commodious . Mr . William Hardy , in 18 * 21 , advanced £ 700 for tho purposo of building a new chapel , in accordance with thin proviso , Heeured upon

      tfre old chapel by ^ mortgage , which was then demised to Jeremiah Cozens , a trustee for Hardy , for a term of 10 G 0 years . William Hardy further agreed tha £ the £ 700 should be considered as £ 350 . In October 1837 , it was deemed necessary to build the new chapel ; and a piece of ground was conveyed to the trustees , on . the same trusts as were contained in a deed dated in 1837 , called the " model deed ;" which provided that the chapel should be for the use of the Methodists , and for such preachers only as should be appointed by the Conference . The deed further provided that it should be lawful for the majority of the trustees to mortgage the ground and

      chapel , in order to carry out the deed . The trusts of the new did not vary materially from the trusts of the old chapel . William Hardy was not a trustee of the new chapel , but supplied the funds ; and in May , 1838 , a demise was made to J . Colman , as a trustee for Hardy , to secure £ 500 . Jeremiah Cozens therefore became entitled to the mortgage of William Hardy , and entitled to hold it as a security for £ 600 . William Hardv died in June , 1842 , having appointed William Hardy , Cozens Hardy , and Jeremiah Cozens , executors , who both proved his will , and Jeremiah Cozens died , and made W . H . C Hardy his executor , who proved his will , and became entitled to the

      mortgage term of 1000 years , and also , as surviving executor of William HaTdy , to the mortgage of £ 600 . Such being the state of the property and title , it is important to direct attention to the organizatien of the Wesleyan body under the deed of 1784 . According to the provisions of that deed , the whole body wa . 3 divided into classes , presided over by class leaders , and these were divided into societies , and a number of these societies formed a district , subject to the superior governing body called a Conference , formed of 100 preachers , who were self-elected in in July and August . In 1850 , the Conference appointed tfye Rev . \ V . Worker and George Badcock to the ministry of the chapel ; Worker being the preacher . This gave offence to the main body of the congregation ; and many of the trustees , both of the old and new chapel , took part with those who

      called themselves " Wesleyan Reformers . ' Hardy , in May , 1 B 50 , applied to Curteis , the surviving trustee of the old chapel , and claimed his mortgagemoney ; this not being forthcoming , the chapel was advertised for sale on Friday , the 14 th , and was put up and sold to the defendant Turner for £ 200 , and Turner paid that sum to Hardy , and Hardy , as mortgagee , and Hardy , Curteis , a nd Johnson , as trustees of the new chapel , and who all took part with the reformers . Since the conveyance the old chapel had been used by the " Reformers , " and it was alleged in a manner wholly at variance with the deed of 1814 . In September last Hardy transferred his mortgage to Hill , as trustee for Colman and Hill , and in the beginning of the present year , brought an action of ejectment .

      'lhe action was brought by tho Conference party to restrain the trustees from acting with reference to the chapel under the trusts of the indenture of 1814 and 1837 ; and to restrain Hill from proceeding with his action of ejectment . Lord Cranworth stated his own view of the case , and delivered judgment accordingly . A point had been raised us to whether the sale to Turner was valid ; but Lord Cranworth thought the validity of the sale had nothing to do with the question , as whether valid or not , the transaction gave Turner all the titlo which Hardy had as mortgagee . When the sale took place he had himself a legal title to the term of 1000 years in the old chapel as a security for the £ 200 .

      Turner paid that sum to him , and he concurred in the conveyance to Turner , so that whatever rights Hardy had prior to the sale were effectually transferred to Turner , and Lord CranwortU was of opinion that Hardy , as mortgiigee , had a ri ^ ht to assert a titlo adverse to the trust , and that he , or any one claiming under him by virtue of that title , had the right to use the chapel for any purpose he might think tit , without being at all bound by the trunts of the deed of 1814 . The deed which in 1814 gave power to rui . se money on mortgage , of necessity gave power to create a title paramount to tlial of the trustee , and , " hh un incident to that title , the right to use the ( old ) chapel in any way , whether in conformity or in opposition to tho trusts of the deed . " Lord Cranworth came to

      the conclusion llint Hardy had a right to innint on bin title an mortgagee , and whatever rights he had were now effectually vested in Tinner ; ai >< l the only relief to be had against , him must be in u regular unit to redeem upon an offer to pay the money due ; and thin disponed of the cniestiun an to the olu "« hapcl . With respect to the new chapel , the mortgage wan transferred to 11 ill , and upon the grounds of the judgment aa to the old chapel . Hill hud a right , to

      assert his titles an mortgagee , and bring an ejectment to obtain possession . Lord Cran worth thought Hardy himself and bin trustees might have done mo , and therefore of courne 11 ill might . To stop execution on the ejectment , the £ 000 wan brought into court , on an arrangement that it . should ahid the judgment of the Court . In the absence of nueli arrangement , an injunction to restrain HiII ' h taking posHcsHioii could only be Himply refused ; and , therefore , all that could now be done wa » to order poHsessioii to be given him ,

      unless the plaintiffs agreed to pay the £ 600 out to him ; he might then be dismissed , and Hftrdy would be chargeable with all sums come to him as . trustee , and which he ought to have applied to pay off the mortgage . That really is the whole case . But a sort of supplementary relief was asked of the Court by the petitioners . They wanted Hardy and the other trustees of the new chapel , to be restrained from acting under the deed of October , 1837 ; and this was demanded on the ground that Hardy and Colman had been expelled from the Methodist body . As to this , it is enough to say that they disputed the validity of their expulsion , and , on looking at the rules , it seemed doubtful to Lord Cranworth whether

      they were not right ; at all events , there was no such urgency as to warrant the Court in interposing by a summary remedy . The only breach of trust charged was the assistance given in enforcing the mortgage . Under all these circumstances , though at the hearing it might be proper to appoint new trustees in the place of those who indicated , at least , a want of sympathy with the feelings of thpse of whose rights they were the guardians , Lord Cranworth saw no present ground for interfering on thq present motion , which he dismissed , but made no order as to costs . As to the plaintiffs' right to sue , he expressed no opinion .

      Untitled Article

      A LUNATIC WITNESS . In the Court of Exchequer , on Saturday , a case came up from the Old Bailey relating to theadmissibility of testimony by a witness partially lunatic . One of the assistants inPeckham lunatic as ylum had been tried for cruelty to a pauper lunatic , at Peckham , and the chief witness against him was an inmate of the asylum , named Donelly , who laboured under tbe delusion that he was possessed by evil spirits . His evidence had , however , been received on the trial by Mr . Justice Coleridge . An objection was now taken to the examination of the witness on the ground that he was non compos mentis . Mr . Collier , on behalf of the prisoner , went into a long -argument , citing various old writers , to prove that a lunatic ' s evidence is not admissible . Sir Frederick Thesiger , who appeared for the prosecution , waa about to argue in support of the validity of the evidence , when he was interrupted by Lord Campbell , who said the court did not consider it necessary for him to say anything on the subject . It appeared that Donelly had always been rational , except on the point relating to spirits . The counsel for the prisoner argued that insanity on a single point—his testimony upon an } r matter whatever—was altogether inadmissible . But such a doctrine would lead to very serious consequences , because it would not only shut out evidence which would go to prove guilt , but also evidence to prove innocence . Mr . Justice Tnlfourd waid if the doctrines urged by the learned counsel were admitted it would go far to invalidate all testimony , for many of the greatest minds were at times subject to delusions . Martin Luther believed that he had struggles with the devil , and Dr . Johnson thought he had conversations with his mother long alter her death . Lord Campbell remarked that Socrates would also have been inadmissible as a witness . Jle had not a legion of spiiits us in this case , but he certainly believed that he was possessed with one spirit .- —The conviction eontirmed .

      Untitled Article

      THE HOUSEHOLD NARRATIVE CASE . The case of the Attorney-General v . Bradbury and Evans , for publishing the Household Narrative , on paper not duly stamped , which has been kept back bo long , came on for trial in the Court of Exchequer , on Wednesday . Mr . Crompton opened the case . He said the information varied the charge , and claimed £ 20 for each offence . The defendants pleaded nil debent ; and , the question bcingone of law — whether or not the publication , the subject of the proceedings , was a newspaper chargeable with stamp duty — a special case for the opinion of ihc court wna Htittod under the order of Mr . Baron Parke .

      lhe Attorney-General said tho ease wus one of some importance to the revenue , and it depended altogether upon whether the UoutwUold Narrative falls within the dcHciiptiou of paper in the schedule to the (> and 7 Will . IV ., c . 7 < i . A di . seusnion followed aw to whether the law contemplated the including monthly publication *! within itn provisions ; even the Attorney-General did not Hcetn to ho at all clear on that h < -ad . The Lord Chief Haron Miid if then ; was any way in which the court could con * true the Kevenue Act no as to exclude the burden upon the Hubjeet , they wore bound to di > mo . Mr . lYncock remarked that if they applied th « t . rule , the Crown could not Huceeed .

      The Attorney- <* ener > il Biiid the Household Narrutiro wan a most , respectable and ex * ellem production , mid the particH connected with it . deserved the uhnottt confederation , both »« individuals unit un members of tho literary world . Hut the more successful it was , the great * r probability of other persons publishing works of tho KHiiu- description , ami , consequently , a HcrioiiH inroad would bo made in the revenue , unlenn they were Hiibjrrt to Htanip duty . He argued that

      Untitled Article

      May 10 , 1851 . ] Wfyt 11 rail Ft . 437

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), May 10, 1851, page 437, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1882/page/9/