The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-12-11 00:00:00

ACTION AGAINST A MEMBER OF A
SHOOTING CLUB.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, to London, the cause of
"Mathews v. Gregory" has been tried, and was an action of
some general int, rest to sportsmen or to Volunteers and
others in thehabit of shooting. It was an action against a
gentleman, a member of a shooting club, for accidentally
wounding the plaintiff by a shot fired from his gun. The
first count put the action as a trespass, on the ground that '
the firing, although accidental, was In itself an intentional
mei wrongful one, to which the defendant pleaded a Justin- '
cation on the ground that he was Lawfully shooting, and that
the plaintiff was unlawfully aunt negligently, without his
knowledge, in his way, no that it was the plaintiff's own
fault that he was wounded. The second coma put the cause
of action on the ground of negligence, and imputed that the
defendant carelessly and negligently fired the gun, to which
the defendant pleaded "Not Guilty."
It appeared that the defendant was a member of a
gun club which had a shooting ground on Wormwood
Scrubbs. Tlie rules stated that the ground was pri-
vate, and for their exclusive use, and there was an
express rule that no person but those employed should
be allowed to enter it except members and friends
introduced by members, and there was another rule
allowing members, under certain restrictions, to intro-
duce private friends. And on certain days the public
were admitted, but only on payment and in certain
specified places ; moreover, there were public notice
boards warning trespassers. The plaintiff, a cab-
man, had driven a member of the club to the
greund, who told him not to go away. The plaintiff
went into a hut appropriated to things belonging to
the club, and which was nearly in the line of fire, al.
tnon4h sufficiently in view for a person to be seen from
the shooting-place, supposing any one was looking for
any one there, or expected any one to be there. The
defendant, not seeing the plaintiff, nor supposing any
one to be in the hut, fired in his turn at a pigeon sud-
denly rising; and his shot struck the plaintiff, who was
wounded in the eye' and another cabman there was
also wounded. Thedefendant went to Bee them in the
hospital, and swore they both said that he was not to
blame, and repeated it afterwards when he gave them
apiece. Nevertheless they both brought actions,
and this was the first tried.
The CHM, for the plaintiff was that, notwithstanding
the rules and the public notice boards, people, and
especially cabmen who brought members, were tacitly
allowed to view the shooting, and a reason was given
by the plaintiff of the wards spoken by the gentleman
he brought, which were put as a kind of leave to be on
the ground. There was, however, no kind of permis-
sion to enter the hut, and there was no evidence that
the defendant had the least reason to suppose any one
was there.
Mr. Seymour (for the plaintiff) insisted that, even
apart from negligence in the defendant, he was liable,
because the act, although accidental, was not involun-
tary, and he cited a cage to that effect, and also a recent
ruling by Mr. Justice Blackburn, at the Leeds assizes,
that a gentleman accidentally shooting a game-beater
was liable, unless it was owing to the man's own negli-
gence in putting himself in the way, lie insisted,
therefore, that the sole issue was whether the defen-
dant tired the shot.
The Lord Chief Justice, however, took a different
view, and was clearly of opinion that if the man was
improperly and unlawfully in the shed—i.e., "without
due and lawful authority," the defendant not knowing
him to be there, nor having any reason to suppose that
he wan there—he was not liable, because he was law-
fully tiring his gun on private grounds ; and the plain-
tiff if he had hot been in the hut would not have been
shot; a--tl in summing sip the case to the jury, he sail
that the defendant lawfully tiring his gun was not liable
unless he fired neg ligently. The ease for the defence was,
in a word, that the plaiiitiff had no right to be in the
hut, and was, in fact, a trespasser; and, moreover,
that there was no reason to suppose that he was there ;
and if there was no negligence on the part of the defend-
ant, he was not liable. And the first question was
whether the plaintiff had any right to be in the hut.
Upon this there could not he much doubt. It
would be for the jury, looking at all the circumstances.
to say whether they had any doubt that the plaintiff
WWI in the hut without leave. Even, however, if the
man had been allowed to go upon the ground, what
was there to show that he had a right to be in the
h,nt? It was not used for spectators, but for a store
place, and spectators bind no business to be there.
Thin and the position of the hut (which the Lord Chief
Justice explained by a plan) would be material
upon the question of negligence, which turned upon
whether the defendant had any retp, di to suppose any
one was there. It might be that the plaintiff would
have been visible from the shooting-place by any
sic I.'. king t s sae if any one was there. And,
no doubt, if the defendant had any reason to suppose