The case of MUTCH versus WILSON and others - a report of which will be found in another column - has ended precisely in the manner which everybody must have expected who had the capacity to examine the facts impartially.  There was really no defence to the action.  It was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the tramway where the accident occurred has not been made in accordance with the requirements of the Board of Trade, that it has not been sanctioned by any Act of Parliament, that it is to all intents and purposes a source of danger to the public, and that scarcely any precautions for ensuring the safety of persons crossing it have been used.
   As it was pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff at the trial, even if the defendants had obtained Parliamentary sanction for making the tramway, they were bound to put up gates which, when a train was crossing the road, ought to have been closed against passengers, and when the line was clear ought to have been closed against it.
   In addition to this a thoroughly competent man should have been employed to look after the gates.

But there were no gates;  and the person who had charge of the crossing on the day when MRS. MUTCH was injured was an old woman who was as fit to discharge the duties which were assigned to her, as she was to perform the work of an archbishop.
==================================================================