An fatal accident occurred near Aylesford on the night of friday 11th July 1856, James Shilling aged 78, a shoe maker and his son Thomas age 36, a builder of West Malling, were drowned by falling over into the river from the path on the Preston side of Aylesford.

The inquest was held at the George Inn on monday 14th July before the coroner J.N. Dudlow and a jury, the foreman of which was Mr Wagon.

Mr Wagon produced a plan which showed the road leading by the side of the water, the wharf and the land about Preston Hall. He stated the road was a private foot road and that the deceased and any other persons by driving on it, committed a trespass, and were liable to a penalty of 40 shillings. Mr Freeman (land steward to Mr Betts) confirmed the road was private and the gate through which the deceased had come was generally kept locked. Mr Wagon stated that at the Quarter sessions, Mr Betts obtained an order to stop up the road and make a new one at Little Preston, which was to be gravelled six inches deep. The road was especially dangerous since the new railway had been opened.

Thomas Rayfield identified the bodies of the deceased and stated that Thomas and his father went to the wharf on friday to inquire about some quoins (corner stones) for a building, which Thomas was erecting. They left home together about six o’clock, but the father parted with the son on the road and the latter drove to Maidstone. The father was to meet him again at Aylesford.

William Baker, a blacksmith of Aylesford, said that at half past four on saturday morning, he was walking along the tow path, when he saw a horse lying in the water. The horse was on it’s back. He went to the spot with his mate, and the captain of a barge took a boat and rowed to the spot. They made lines fast to the chaise, and pulled it out of the water, and they towed the horse down to the bridge and made it fast to a barge. The horse was “quite dead and stiff.” He then helped search for any bodies.

James Finch, a mariner of Maidsone, stated he was walking down from Maidstone to Aylesford on saturday morning about half past five, and hearing of the accident, hastened to the spot. Constable Hilton had been sent for and drags were used close to the spot, where the chaise entered the water. Two bodies were recovered. There was a footpath at the place, but he had often seen carts pass over it. When he first knew the spot, the road ran about 15 yards farther inland. The bodies were taken to the George Inn. It was high water on Sunday evening at half past seven and the water ebbed very fast for about two hours.

Israel Elliott, who was employed by Mr Garnham, at the stone quarry, stated that he knew Thomas Shilling and that he came to him at the stable on the wharf on friday night, a little before nine o’clock. He left his chaise at the gate and walked to the stable. As Mr Garnham was not there, he said he would return. He returned to the gate, where he had left his horse, Israel told him that a train was coming along soon and asked him, if his horse would take fright. Thomas Shilling, stated that  he had left the horse with another man, as the horse could not be trusted by itself. Israel stated that he judged that the train from Maidstone would have arrived at the same time Thomas Shilling had walked back to his horse. He saw him again, twenty minutes later, when he passed along the stone wharf.

William Smith of New Hythe, stated he was gatekeeper at Preston gate and on friday night, he saw Thomas Shilling come from Aylesford, between the river and the rails.  He went to the stable and after a time, returned to his chaise, which he had left about three rods from the gate near the level crossing, and there was a person in it. He did not see him get into the chaise, about six minutes after he left, he heard the train come by. The train whistle was sounded just before the level crossing and again before the station.

From the evidence it was concluded that as the gate was locked, Thomas Shilling had left the chaise  at the gate and walked to the stable on the wharf. On his return, he was seen to mount the chaise, and drive along the path back to the first gate, and it was supposed that the train overtaking them, and there only being a hedge between the path and railway, the horse was suddenly frightened, and by backing up, perhaps only a yard, the chaise, horse and men, were in a moment precipitated over the bank into the river, the accident occurring about midway between the two gates.

Constable Hilton produced a watch, which was found on the body of James Shilling, which had stopped at 18 minutes past 9, the station master at Millhall had informed him that the train passed there at 12 minutes past 9. Ann Shaw, wife of Samuel Shaw, who laid forth the deceased stated that the only mark, she observed was a slight mark on the forehead of James Shilling.

The Coroner said there was no doubt the deaths of the unfortunate men were caused by accident. The same horse was nearly burned to death at the fire, which took place on the premises of Thomas Shilling at Malling, a short time back and it was probable that, seeing the fire of the engine as the train passed along, it was much alarmed and dashed into the river.  There could be no doubt the road was dangerous, but as it was private, there was no necessity to fence it. So far as carriages were concerned it was a private road and with the question as its being dangerous to foot passengers, it would no doubt be remedied by Mr Betts. To prevent a recurrence of such an accident, he would recommend the gates should be kept locked. No doubt Thomas Shilling got into the chaise and fancied he should be able to drive from the dangerous point before the train got up to him. The foreman said if Thomas Shilling had been able to reach the bend in the road, there would have been more ground to have managed the horse in, and he might probably have been pulled up. The jury returned a verdict of “Accidentally drowned.”

Both  men were insured in the Railway Passengers and General Accident Assurance Company for £1000 each. Thomas Shilling left a widow and four children, who by such measure provided for, as they would come in for the whole amount of the double insurance.

James and Thomas Shilling were both buried at West Malling on 17th July 1856.

A twist in the tale – the widow of Thomas Shilling, Charlotte Shilling brought an action against the Accidental death Insurance company in March 1858, to recover the sum of £2000 on a policy for her father in law James Shilling. The company pleaded that they never made the policy and that the plaintiff was not the administratrix of  James Shilling, and at the time the policy was effected, James Shilling was subject to fits and was ruptured, circumstances unknown to the company and the policy was obtained by fraud. The policy was obtained for the sole benefit of Thomas, the son of James Shilling and that James Shilling had wantonly exposed himself to the dangers which resulted in his death. Mr Sergeant Shee addressed the jury, the principal point was that the insurance effected on behalf of the deceased James Shilling was not a bona fide insurance by him, but the insurance was effected by his son Thomas Shilling, for his own benefit, and that the other had no interest in the matter. A number of witnesses were examined to speak to certain statements made by Thomas Shilling to that effect, and evidence was also adduced to show the James Shilling was subject to fits and other ailments, which had been kept from the knowledge of the company at the time, the insurance was effected. Mr Justice Erle, in summing up, told the jury that the statute of the 14th George lll was passed expressly for the purpose of preventing persons effecting insurances upon the lives of others for their own benefit, and he observed that it was obvious that if a person was allowed to effect an insurance upon the life of another without the knowledge or sanction of that other, such a proceeding was calculated to lead to a good deal of crime and the object of the legislature was to repress such a course of conduct. The learned judge then called the attention of the jury to the facts of the case as they appeared in evidence and said that it they were of the opinion that the insurance was effected by the son, Thomas Shilling, without the consent or knowledge of his father, and with the view that he, himself, should alone derive advantage from it, the defendants were entitled to a verdict upon the plea, which alleged that the insurance was a wagering one and not effected for the benefit of James Shilling but for that of his son. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defendants!