The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-07-16 00:00:00

THE DANGER OF PLAYING WITH
FIREARMS!

To the Court of Qwen's Beech, the cause of Chaplin (ad-
ministrator) v. de Castro," has been heard, aid was att action
of a wont ul alit novel character. It was an action
i.y the plaintlf as administrator of her (Whir, to re...ear, on
behal! of the farory, compen9a•loo from the defendant for
having cauwd his death by shootirg at him with a loaded

" GUT Q C., Sir George Flonymen, QC , and Mr.
Peillw:ek were I.e. the platnulf iCr J din Karelake, QC ,
Mr. C. Pollock, Q C., an] Mr. Slarrtott vr..re for Ind defen-
dant.

The circumstances of the case, as tl ey apprared in
edridence, were ti ee The decea,d, a Mr. William
Chaplin, was a contract nr who had g .4 a contract, for
which, hnwever, h wate.ed funds. He then applied
to the defendant. Mr, De Castro, who Veal in partner-
ship ax an attorney, to assist in supply leg funds
for the purp.ow, spud the defendant's firm had
made him advances to the amount of £3,000, but
had deedued to advance more as matters then
ateul ; and in S-Wember, 1858, this being the state of
affairs, he invited Mr. Chaplin to dine with him, to
" discuaa the matt,r and see what was to be done."
Accordincly Mr. Chap'in went with his son, and dined
with Mr. De Castro, hia wife, and his brother. After
dinner there wax a dircuodon almost firearms between
the lltrer, and MrP. De Castro fetched a pistol, which
She exhibited. Mr. De Castro fetchnd another
revolver, 'which, an it turned out, was loaded, and
pointed it towards Mr. Chaplin, who Pat by his side ;
while rpeaking about it he pulhol the trigger; it fired,
and shot Mr. Chaplin in the neck, causing his death.
Mr. De Castru'ir account of the sad occurence was
thin:—

" A dliciweien arose as to pistols, and my brother was
making remarks on the had form ..f the pistol which he was
speaking of. I went upstairs and brought down a pistol of
a construction alluded to. I was between my brether and
Mr Chaplin. 1 was holding the two plated. out In toy
hands, and could not Pee the b irrels, but Imth appeared to
me to be unleaded. The one to my left band had Only ono
towel. The one in my light hand bad els barrels, which re-
volved. I pallid the two triggers to allow the difference
between their action. The one in my right hand exploded.
The chamber beim. me woe not loaded. The not of pulling
the trigger pulled I.ollllli a barrel which was loaded, and that
ehernher etploded. For several seconds I thought that I
Isn't hit a tinily plctute behold him. the ball had, however,
entered the neck of Sir. Chaplin, just under the ear, and
given him a mortal wound."

'Nothing was said as to when the piatol was loaded or
how it came to be lorselea ; but it WAS taken for granted
that Mr. De Castro dial not know or remember that
the weapon had been loaded, ant it was only put, of
3 AWAY, as a eerie of
,carele. guess. 'The eldest son of the
de ceased, who was present on the unhappy occasion,
also gave evidence about it. WWI stated there was POMP
talk about pistols, and Mrs. De Castro brought down
a small pistol aid showed it to her husband's brother.
The defendant sad it was not right to bring pistols
into the room, Same more talk, however, etc, lured on
the subject, and some kind of pistol was alluded to. The
defendant said, I know what you me en, and he went
upstairs and brought down acwe of pistols. Retook his
seat at the bead of his table and took a pistol out, aud he Id
it in his hand, pointing it towards the deceased, Pay-
ing, "You mean this." The pistol went if, and shot
the witness's father in the neck, under the ear. The
ch fendant exclaimed, "Good God, I've shot Chaplin !"
There wag of curs,', an inquest, and (though it was
not St ateel) its believed the verdict Was "Accidental
death." The deceased was insured for i'l,ooo and the
money had been received but was absorbed in debts.
He left a widow and two daughters and two sons, all
grown up; and he left Rome house property, which,
however, went to the etleet son as heir-at-law (there
being it. vvVl) and so he sued, not nil his own account
but on behalf of hie mother and brother and
sisters. The deceased Was 51 years of age, bad
good health, end was able to earn, as mausger,
betwee n £7OO and £BOO a-year. It appeared
thi,t the defendant bad offer, d, upon smile terms
which did not appear, to release the debt of £3,000 due
to him and his partner, and to pay £2,000; but, for
spire reason or other, this was not accepted, and the
at,e !opt at arrangement went off. Tee tense quelled
was that this action it as brought, and was ready for
trial last year, when the S-ilicitor General, on behalf
of the elefend ant, agreed to refer the cause, and all
debts due to the defendant or his firm, to the arbitra-
time of Mr. Russell Gurney. The deferement, however
(*her W 35 Out present at the time), said he had under-
aload that the object was to alliew of a set-ill of the
debt due to him against the amount to be awarded as
damages, and that as this was not assented to the
matter went off, and thus came to trial. Ihe only
question in the case, of course, Was as to the amount of
chernagea.
Mr. G,llard, in opening the case to the jury, said
the sad event had amen from that rash praetice which
it was painful to see, in spite of all the warning that
had been given, still PO much prevailed—the practice
of playing with firearms without taking any care to
gee if they were loaded.

Evidence was shortly given as to the circumstances
of the death, to the effect above stated; but the far
greater part of the evidence related to the pecuniary
damage rebAting from the death, aa to whico the case
for the family was at first rested—mainly on the con.

tract for the pier, which it was said was for £140,0011,
and was worth £40,000, and on which work had actually
been certificated as done to the amount of £14,000. I
turned out, however, on the evidence for the defence,
that however valuable this might become at some
future time, when a railway I.e AS tussle, and docks and
wharves constructed, at present it was worthless, and
the value of the deceased's life to his family was in the
amount of his possible salary.

Sir John Karslake, in addressing the jury for the
defendant, declared that he deplored the tad event as
deeply as any man could do, and, although it was a
pure accident, he did not dispute his liability.
Assuming, however, that the defendant was respont.ibltt
for the unfortunate accident, the question was one of
damages, and that mainly nepended upon the position
and prospects of the scheme on which the deceased was
engaged, which he declared had totally failed, and
proved disastrous to all concerned.
The defendant was called, and gave evidence BR
above stated wit° the circumetances of the unhappy
occurrence.
His brother was about to be called to give his account
of it, when—
The Lord Chief Justice observed that he h.inily
thought it necessary, as on the on hand the liability
had not been denied, and on the other hand no one im-
puted that it was more than careltseness.
The rest of the case turned upon damages, and WM
of no interest.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case to
the jury, said he thought Sir J. Kardake was quite
right in admitting the liability of his client, the de-
fendant. He did not mean to say that he thought that
in every case of a death through the casual Ilse of
firearms there coul I be such s liability. It ought
happen to a Man who was shoWintr firearms not know-
ing that they were loaded that a death might be caused
by a pure accident, aud without any ground for im-
puting negligence. It all turned upon the particular
circumstances of the case. luthisinstance he could not
help thinking that there must have been some careless-
ness in handling the weapon; for it appeared that the
ball went through the neck of the deceased, who was
sitting on one side of the defendant, just below the ear.
It was difficult to conceive bow this could have hap-
pened without some carelessnests in handling the
weapon. However, the jury need not trouble them-
selves about that, for Sir J. Karidake had, wisely and
properly, admitted the liahility. It became, therefore,
a mere question of the amount of c impensation, as to
which the jury might discard the contract from their
consideration, awl confine their attention to the earn-
ing power of the unfortunate deceased as a manager of
contracts.

The jury inquired whether the £l,OOO hal been re-
ceived rr nu the imiurance company?
The plaint'ff replied the, it had, but had been ex-
hau3teit—all but a.inuall sum—in payment of debts.

The jury auto lit they were to eat off the £3,000 due
tu., the defendant and tic partner fur the tuuney &S-
-ys need to the dec.ased.

The Lord Chief Justice said he could not say that
they were to do so. There was no set-off in damages,
and the parties were different.
The jury retired to consider their verdict. After an
absence ef about half an hour they came into court
with a vereict for £3 000, allotted among the family
thus :—E1,500 to the widow, £6OO to one daughter and
£l5O to another, and £l5O to the