SHOCKING DOUBLE FATALITY AT DESBOROUGH
STATION.
WOMAN AND CHILD KILLED.
THE INQUEST.
A double fatality of a terrible character occurred at Desborough
Station on Saturday morning about ten o'clock. A woman named Elizabeth
Palmer, 30 years of age, wife of
Charles Palmer, a gas man, and her
child Dixon Palmer, aged five years, were knocked down by a goods train
and killed instantly.
Mr. J. T. Parker, the Divisional Coroner, held an inquest on the
bodies at the Temperance Institute, on Saturday evening.
Mr. F. C Fenton
was chosen foreman of the jury, and there were also in attendance
Inspector Butlin and P.S. Thomas, of the County Police; Chief Inspector
Loveday (Derby) and Inspector Lovatt (Wellingborough), representing the
Midland Railway Company; and Mr. C. W. Lane (Kettering), who represented
the relatives of the deceased and the Desborough Urban Council. Mr. F.
Barlow, J.P. (Rothwell) was also present at the enquiry.
—The Coroner having stated the nature of the enquiry,
Dixon Palmer,
manager of the Desborough Gas Works, formally identified the bodies of
Mrs. Palmer, who was his sister-in-law, and was 34 years old, and the
deceased lad Dixon, four years old. The two were going to Northampton
that morning, and were accompanied by another lad named
Harry Palmer.
—John Keech, farmer, residing at the Hermitage Farm, near
Desborough, deposed that he was on the down platform at Desborough
Station that morning, waiting to go by the 9.49 train to Northampton.
The deceased woman took her ticket just before witness, and as the
station bell ran[g] witness thought it was for their train. Witness
found a train standing on the whole length of the down platform,
blocking both crossings. Before he got to the northern crossing,
however, the train backed a few yards, leaving the crossing clear. Just
as witness was crossing he saw a train coming on the up line, and as it
was travelling much faster than he expected witness ran to get out of
the way. When witness got clear he looked back and saw the deceased
woman coming over the level crossing towards witness leading a little
boy. Witness called to her to come on quickly, but before she could do
anything she was knocked down with the boy. After the train had passed
witness got down on to the line and picked the boy up. The lad was not
quite dead, but expired directly witness laid him down in the waiting
room. The woman was carried further down the line by the train. Witness
thought the approaching train was the one by which he was going to
travel, and the deceased might have thought the same. He could not say
which side of his mother the deceased boy was.
—By Mr. Lane. There were no officials on the platform at the time to
caution passengers. Witness was not cautioned, neither did he hear
anyone else. There were only five passengers, and he did not hear the
approaching engine whistle.
—Wm. Riggall, farmer, of Pipewell, who was one of the passengers by
the 9.49 train from Desborough that morning, said he crossed the line
before the last witness, and he saw the woman and children attempt to
cross. The woman had no chance; if she had been a yard forwarder she
would have been out of the way, for she was struck by the near side of
the engine. He thought the lad must have been a little bit in advance of
his mother, or it would have carried him with her, but he dropped where
he was struck. There was no porter on the platform at the time. When
witness crossed the line the mineral train on the down road stood over
the crossing at the Harborough end, and witness went round the engine.
The engine was not making a noise, and there was nothing to attract
anybody's attention. Anyone could see a train approaching from the
bridge.
—By Mr. Lane: There was no official there to give any caution, and
he heard no whistle.
Henry Gibbon, surgeon, Desborough, deposed to seeing the bodies in
the waiting-room at the station. The woman was extremely cut about, and
must have been killed instantly, and the boy had a wound on the left
side of the head sufficient to cause almost instant death.
George Allen Smart, a fireman in the employ of the Midland Railway
Company, stated that that morning he was with an engine and train
standing on the down line at Desborough Station about 9.45. He saw a
woman and two children cross in front of his engine to go to the up
platform, and he saw a fast train approaching from the direction of
Market Harborough. Witness shouted to the woman when she commenced to
cross the line, and he also held up his hand. He did not know whether
the woman saw or heard him, but she did not stop, and was knocked down
by the approaching train. It was a fish train, and was not intended to
stop at Desborough. It was going between 10 and 40 miles an hour.
By the Jury: He heard the whistle of the fish train after it got in
sight of the station on the south side of the Harborough Bridge. He was
quite sure about this, and he believed the whistle sounded twice. He had
not had any conversation with the driver of the fish train
—By Mr. Lane: He heard the whistle of the fish train after he had
shouted to the woman. He could not say whether the train was going
between 10 and 40 miles an hour.—Mr. Lane: I won't ask you any more;
it's disgusting. (Hear, hear.)—The Coroner (to witness): You are too
cautious.
Tom Capewell, of Derby, said that he drove a special fish train from
Leicester to Bedford. It was an extra train owing to the mackerel trade
beginning. He went through Desborough Station at 9.45 a.m., at a rate of
between 25 and 30 miles an hour. He saw a man cross the line just in
front of his train, and he then saw a woman and two children follow from
the down platform. Witness, who was on the right hand side of the
engine, whistled before he saw the woman. He had had the brake on, and
stopped as soon as he could, which was within about 200 or 300 yards.
Witness opened his whistle as soon as he caught sight of the platform,
because they always whistled if there were any passengers standing
there, or a train on the other road. It was one long whistle which was
blowing when the engine struck the woman. Witness could not have pulled
up from the bridge to have stopped at the station.
—By Mr. Lane: Witness did not know that there was a passenger train
due, and as the signals were off he would have been justified in going
through even faster than he did.
William Samuel Orchard, station master at Desborough, said that he
was on duty at the time of the accident, in the yard. A train was due to
leave for Northampton at 9.49. Witness was coming from the signal-box at
the south end of the station at the time the fish train was coming, and
he then heard someone cry, he believed it was a guard, that someone had
been run over. Witness went along the line towards the station, and
there saw the mangled remains of a woman, part lying in the four-foot
way and part between the rails and the platform. Witness heard the fish
train whistle, and he believed it was a long one. Witness had the bodies
removed to the waiting-room. At the time they had a porter on the
platform doing various duties, but there was no porter appointed to look
after the platform when no train was in. The porter in question was
attending to other duties at the time. There were two crossings, and if
witness had men to warn passengers he should have done so. The bell rang
just before the fish train ran through, but that was for a telegram, but
a passenger might mistake that for his train being due. Since he had
been station master he had heard that previously the Urban Council had
made recommendations as to a foot-bridge being needed. He had also heard
that a man named Coe had had a narrow escape.
The Coroner: Isn't it more dangerous at night because you can't tell
whether a lamp is five or fifty yards away?—Witness: I do not say it is
dangerous at all. I have had complaints from customers.
The Coroner at this point adjourned the enquiry.
THE DESBOROUGH TRAGEDY
(continued from page 7)
THE ADJOURNED INQUEST.
RAILWAY COMPANY CENSURED.
The shocking occurrence at Desborough Station last Saturday, when
Mrs. Elizabeth Palmer and her son Dixon, aged five, were kill by a
train, was investigated at the adjourned inquest on Thursday, held at
the Temperance Institute, Desborough, before Mr. J. T. Parker.—Mr. C.
W. Lane (Clerk) and Mr. G. W. Sumner (Chairman) attended on behalf of
the Desborough Urban Council, and the Midland Railway Company were
represented by Mr. J. P. Young (solicitor to the Midland Railway
Company, Birmingham), and Mr. F. Barlow, J.P., was also present. A good
number of the public were also present throughout the enquiry.
At the outset the Coroner reported that he had communicated with the
Board of Trade in respect to the accident, and the wish that the Board
would be represented at the adjourned enquiry. He had received the
following telegram: "Board will not be represented at inquest to-morrow,
but they will consider question of holding an enquiry into the accident.
Any representation of the jury will receive attention of Board of Trade
Railway." As Mr. Lane was present on behalf of the Urban Council, he
would ask him to produce any evidence that he had.—Mr. Lane then called
George Ward Sumner, Chairman of the Desborough Urban Council, who
stated that on the 10th of January, 1893, a minute was passed calling
the attention of the Midland Railway Company to the serious danger of
the level crossing at Desborough Station, and a letter in accordance
with that motion was sent to the secretary of the company. On May 18th
another letter was sent to the Company stating that only a formal
acknowledgment of the letter of the 10th January had been received, and
asking for some definite reply to the communication. On May 30th, 1893,
a letter was received from the Company stating that the directors
regretted that they could not see their way to erect a footbridge at
Desborough Station. On July 30th, 1895, the Clerk again wrote to the
Company calling attention to the danger of the level crossing, and
stating that the Council were prepared with evidence as to several
narrow escapes. Only a formal acknowledgment was received to this
letter, and again on January 14th, 1896, the Clerk was instructed to
press for a reply. In reply to this communication, a letter was received
from the manager of the company on 28th January, again stating that the
company could not see their way to erect a footbridge. Upon this it was
decided that representation should be made by the Council to the Board
of Trade, and application was made to the Company for information as
regarded the amount of traffic at the station, the Company being
informed of the purpose of the required information.
Mr. Young: That information was supplied.
Mr. Lane: Oh, yes. The average number of passengers was given at 80.
Witness, continuing, said a letter was written to the Board of Trade
pointing out the dangers of the level crossing at Desborough Station,
and asking for their intervention. On the 3rd of July 1896, a letter was
received from the Board of Trade stating that they had no power to
intervene in the matter. The Board had communicated with the Railway
Company on the matter, and the Company had replied stating that in the
opinion of the directors the circumstances did not warrant the outlay
involved in the request of the Urban Council. (A Juryman: "Shame.")
On March 31st, 1897, the Council decided that the Clerk should again
write to the Company urging that as an additional danger had been
created by the construction of new sidings near the station, a
footbridge should be constructed. On April 13th a letter was received
from Mr Turner, the general manager stating that there had been no
change in the circumstances since the previous application was made, and
the Company did not see their way to erect a footbridge at the station.
On May 11th this letter was read at a meeting of the Council, and a
resolution was proposed that the Council received with deep regret the
decision of the Company with regard to the dangerous level crossing at
Desborough Station, and looked forward with grave concern to the safety
of those who are compelled to use the same. On May 17th a formal letter
of acknowledgment was received from the Company.
Mr. Lane said this closed the case so far as the communication
between the Council and the Railway Company was concerned.
Mr. G. W. Sumner, in reply to the Coroner, said that he had no
additional facts to lay before the jury, but he only wished to point out
that the Council had done everything in its power, both by approaching
the Company and the Board of Trade, to alter the existing conditions.
Mr. F. Barlow said he considered that the Council had made out such a
case that if it had been an individual instead of a Company, it would
have been a serious matter. He could say nothing beyond what Mr. Sumner
had stated.
The Coroner, in summing up, said that the only question for the jury
to decide was whether the accident was by the neglect or default of any
person. There was no difficulty in finding how the poor people came to
their deaths. He pointed out that the Company were not bound to keep a
person to tell passengers where to go, or to see where they went, even
if it was a fact that two level crossings would further involve matters.
It was no duty cast upon the Company to have men there specially to warn
passengers. There was no proof of any negligence on the part of any of
the officials, and they could not find the Company guilty of culpable
negligence. They had had their attention called to the matter quite
sufficiently and quite fully by the local authority, the Urban Council.
It was not exactly the Council's duty to do this, but they were probably
carrying out the desires of the people they represented. It was a duty
which did not devolve upon them by law, and no one was legally bound to
take any notice of their applications. The Council took the next best
step in applying to the Board of Trade, who were supposed to govern the
railway systems in the country, but after full consideration the Board
replied that they had no power to intervene in the matter. He (the
Coroner) thought this was quite true, for railways were constructed
under Acts of Parliament, and in those statutory powers nothing was said
about level crossings or bridges. It was another question where a
Company had a monopoly of the running powers in a certain direction,
they should not have considered the application from the people who were
their customers, to make better accommodation. Now that this unfortunate
accident had happened, it was possible that some better means would be
adopted. As far as his opinion went, he considered it dangerous, because
there were a great number of trains running through the station, and
that danger was increased, he thought, at night time. Again, a train
standing on the down line was an additional danger. He hoped now that
the Company had seen this danger they would do something to remedy this
state of affairs.
The jury considered their verdict in camera, and after half an hour's
deliberation, returned a verdict of "Accidental death," and added the
following rider: "We consider the Midland Railway Company to blame in
not providing an official to warn intending passengers of their danger,
and further we censure the Midland Railway Company for neglecting to
provide, after repeated requests, a safe means of crossing, and that the
Board of Trade be requested to make an enquiry into the whole matter."
(Applause.)
Before the jury were dismissed, Mr. F. C. Fenton, the Foreman,
expressed with the relatives of the deceased the jury's deep and
heartfelt sympathy in their bereavement.
FUNERAL
The funeral of the woman and child who were killed at Desborough
Station on Saturday morning, took place on Tuesday afternoon at the new
cemetery. As the mournful cortege wended its way to the cemetery, the
streets were literally lined with sympathisers, although a heavy shower
was falling at the time. The weather cleared up during the latter part
of the proceedings, and a large crowd congregated at the cemetery. The
Rev. I. Near conducted the service, which was of a most impressive
character, and when the remains of the two victims were committed to the
earth, hardly a dry eye was to be seen. The grief of the bereaved
orphans was piteous to behold. The coffins were interred in the same
grave. Among those at the cemetery were most of the members of the Urban
District Council. There was a large number of beautiful wreaths.
Northampton Mercury, Friday 26 May 1899