The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-06-29 00:00:00

A NOVEL AND PECULIAR CASE.

The cause of "Harris v. Mobbs" has been heard before the
Lord Chief Baron and Baron Pollock, and was a case of a
novel and peculiar nature. It was tried before Mr. Justice
De..man at the last Oxford Spring Assizes, when his lordship
reserved the findings of the jury for further consideration,
and finally gave judgment for the plaintiff for 4,250, the
amount a,sessed by the jury at the trial on the 18th inst.

Mr. Henry Matthews, Q.O , now moved for a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection, that the veMict
was against the weight of evidence, and that the
findings of the jury did not conclude the matters
between the parties. The action is brought by a
widow and children under Lord Campbell's Act, in
the following circumstances
The deceased, Mr. Harris, was driving with his son
in a dog-cart about eight on a night in September last
along the high-road in Oxfordshire. The metalled
part of the road was 18ft. wide, and there were
strips of grass of about equal width on each side. • On
one side were drawn up close to the hedge a "house
van," wherein people could live, and a steam plough.
When passing these the mare shied, swerved, kicked,
and bolted for 120 yards finally upsetting the trap.
She then kicked the deceased on the knee, and he was
laid up for some time ; but erysipelas supervened, and
he ultimately died. For the 'plaintiff witnesses were
called who proved that their horses had shied at the
van and the plough during the day,

For the defence eight witnesses appeared, who
stated that the afternoon was rainy and slippery ; that
they had found such difficulty in placing the companion
traction engine in the field that they had left the
things near the hedge ; that the mare had not swerved
till after the van had been passed; that the man had
said "Come up ! " and flicked the mate with his
whip ; that the mare was decidedly vicious, and
a confirmed kicker, having smashed two traps of a
previous owner. She had been sold by two
owners on account of that Vice. On that day
she had begun kicking and had splintered the
dash-board, and the boy had to get out and hold
her. Mr. Matthews said there was a great dearth
of authority on the subject of a terrifying nuisance
like this. The boy had said there was a light in
the window of the van, but that had been cJntra-
dieted by other witnesses. In the old days a stage
coach with its brilliant lights and the horn blowing was
a very likely thing to frighten horses. A regiment of
soldiers or Volunteers, or even their Lordships' cos-
tumes (it being the Coronation day the Court sat in their
scarlet robes) were equally dangerous; but there Was no
instance of these being indicted or sued for damage
done. The following were the questions left by the
Judge to the jury :-1. Was the van unreasonably
left standing where it was ?—Yes. 2. Was it neg-
ligence to leave it where it was ?—Yes; consider-
ing that no effort was made to get it into the
field. 3. Was it a dangerous thing to vehicles
passing along the metalled road ? Not more so
than if the van had been in motion drawn by
horses. 4. Was the death occasioned by the van
standing near the road, or was it an accident, or due
to the negligent management of the mare by the de-
ceased, or by the inherent vice of the animal, or
by two or more of these causes or all combined ?—By
all combined, except by accident and the negligence
of the deceased. 5. Was the accident contributed to
by negligence of the deceased ?—No. On being pressed
by his lordship to give same further answer to ques-
tion the jury said there was some appreciable
danger.
The jury did not agree on the question whether the
van was substantially dangerous, or only so to some
nervous horses.

The Court said before deciding they would consult
Mr. Justice Denman.