ravelling in coming up to
the Assembly--"don't tell me that tunnels on railways are an unmitigated
evil: they serve high moral and aesthetical purposes. Only the other day
I got into a railway carriage, and I had hardly taken my seat, when the
train started. On looking up, I saw sitting opposite to me two of the
most rabid dissenters in Scotland. I felt at once that there could be no
pleasure for me in that journey, and with gloomy heart and countenance I
leaned back in my corner. But all at once we plunged into a deep tunnel,
black as night, and when we emerged at the other end, my brow was clear
and my ill-humour was entirely dissipated. Shall I tell you how this
came to be? All the way through the tunnel I was shaking my fists in the
dissenters' faces, and making horrible mouths at them, and _that_
relieved me, and set me all right. Don't speak against tunnels again, my
dear friend."

--_Fraser's Magazine_.

DAMAGES EASILY ADJUSTED.

It is related that the President of the Fitchburg Railroad, some thirty
years ago, settled with a number of passengers who had been wet but not
seriously injured by the running off of a train into the river, by paying
them from $5 to $20 each. One of them, a sailor, when his terms were
asked, said:--"Well, you see, mister, when I was down in the water, I
looked up to the bridge and calculated that we had fallen fifteen feet,
so if you will pay me a dollar a foot I will call it square."

LIABILITIES OF RAILWAY ENGINEERS FOR THEIR ERRORS.

An action was tried before Mr. Justice Maule, July 30, 1846--the first
case of the kind--which established the liability of railway engineers
for the consequences of any errors they commit.

The action was brought by the Dudley and Madeley Company against Mr.
Giles, the engineer. They had paid him 4,000 pounds for the preparation
of the plans, etc., but when the time arrived for depositing them with
the Board of Trade they were not completely ready. The scheme had
consequently failed. This conduct of the defendant it was estimated had
injured the company to the extent of 40,000 pounds. The counsel for the
plaintiff did not claim damages to this amount, but would be content with
such a sum as the jury should, under the circumstances, think the
defendant ought to pay, as a penalty for the negligence of which he had
been guilty. For Mr. Giles, it was contended, that the ju