The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-01-22 00:00:00

MR. GLADSTONE ON THE SUNDAY

• QUESTION.
The following correspondence has been forwarded to
the London papers for publication :
Working-men's Lord's Day Rest Association,
12, Bedford-row, W.C., 12th Jan., 1876.
Sir,—The Swiss are making great efforts to secure Sunday
as a day of rest. A Society in Geneva has recently awarded
to me a prize of 300 franos for an essay-on "Sunday; its In.
fiaenee on Health and National Prosperity ;" and a hope has
been expressed that my essay will be printed in English as
well as in French. I should estc.em it a very great honour
If you would kindly write a few words of introduction to the
paper.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient
servant, CHARLES HILL.
To the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.

Hawarden, Jan. 13, 1876.

Sir,—l regret that lam unable, from the pressure of other
duties, to enter farther into the subject of your letter of
yesterday than to congratulate you on the distinction you
have obtained, and to express my hearty good wishes for the
design of your essay. Believing in the authority of the
Lord's Day as a religious institution, I must, as a matter of
course, desire the recognition of that authority by others.
But over and above this, I have myself, in the course of a
laborious life, signally experienced both its mental and its
physical benefits. I can hardly overstate its value in this
view, and for the interest of the working men of this country
alike in these and in other yet higher respects, there is
nothing I more anxiously desire than that they should more
and more highly appreciate the Christian day of rest —I
remain, Sir, your faithful servant, W. E. GLADSTONE.

WRIGHT v. THE LONDON AND NORTH:

WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

In the Supreme Court of Judicature the above cause has
been heard, and was an appeal in a railway accident case,
under these circumstances :

The accident occurred at Penrith Station. The
plaintiff had been at Windermere Fair, and had
bought a heifer, which he was bringing to Penrith.
He took a ticket for the heifer and a separate ticket
for himself, the heifer coming in the cattle-box in the
same train. On the arrival of the train. it stopped
at the passenger station, the cattle box being dropped
off and having to be " shunted "to another siding.
On this occasion it was pushed there, and there
being only one porter to push it, the plaintiff, at
his requ.st and with the assent of the station-
master, assisted in pushing the trucks, and he was en-
gaged in assisting them, when an engine struck the
trucks and knocked him down and seriously injured
him. The company called no evidence, and the jury
gave a verdict in the plaintiff's favour for £1,600, and
the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division—the Lord
Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Field—upheld the
verdict, as it appeared to be the practice of the station
that the owners of cattle should assist in shunting, and
that on this ccca.sion the station-master assented to the
plaintiff so assisting. And they decided on the autho-
rity of a decision of a Ciourt of Error in a similar case.
Nevertheless, the company appealed.
Mr. Aspinall, Q. C., and Mr. Gully were for the
company; Mr. Herschel], Q.C., and Mr. Crompton
were for the plaintiff.
On the case being stated, Lord Coleridge observed
that the Court below bad decided expressly on the
decision of the Court of Error in a similar case.
Lord Justice James, observing that railway com-
panies almost always appealed, asked what was the
point of law on which the appeal rested in the present
case, as it was not disputed that the plaintiff was as-
sisting the railway servants at their request, and that
the engine driving against the trucks was negligent.
Lord Justice Mellish also obser red that the law was
well settled that where the party was nob intermeddling
as a mere Tolunteer, but was assisting the railway com-
pany'a servants at their own request, he was entitled
to recover for an injury caused by their negligence. If
the railway servants, indeed, without any authority,
asked any one to assist them, the party could not in
the event of an accident recover; but here the com-
pany did not 'have a sufficient staff of servants, and
the station-master concurred in asking the assistance.
Lord Justice James again observed that there was
no question of law in the case. The company called
no evidence on this or any other point, and it must be
taken, therefore, as the jury found for the plaintiff,
that he was not a mere volunteer. That being so, if
there was any evidence for the jury the verdict must
stand and could it be said that there was none?

The Court were quite clear in favour of the plaintiff,
and after hearing the counsel for the railwAy com-
pany fully, without callu3g on the counsel for the
plaintiff, they proceeded to pronounce judgment in his
favour.

Lord Coleridge said, in giving judgment, that there
was evidence which satisfied the jury, and satisfied the
Judges of the Queen's Bench, and equally satisfied
this Court, that the plaintiff was assisting the com-
pany's servants at their request and with the sanction
of the superintagent. and while thus assisting them
he was knocked down by one of the company's engines
negligently driven: That being so, there was a deci-
sion of a Court of Error that in such a case the plain-
tiff was entitled to recover. The company's autho-
rized manager authorized the plaintiff to assist, and
while he was doing so he was injured by one of the
company's engines. It was clear, therefore that the
plaintiff wr.• not a mere volunteer, and that he was en-
titled to recover,

Lord Justice James said he should have been sorry
if the law had been that a person in the plaintiff's
position could not recover, and he rejoiced that it was
settled by the former decision of the Court of Error
beyond the possibility of doubt, in accordance at once
with common sense and justice.

Lord Justice Mellish also concurred, as he plaintiff
was not a mere volunteer, assisting as he was neces-
sarily, and with the station master's authority.
Baron Cleasby also conourred, pointing out that the
case in the Court of Error was decisive that a person
in the position of the plaintiff was net to be con-
sidered as a mere volunteer, and therefore was not
precluded from recovering.
Lord Justice Baggallay likewise concurred.
Judgment for the plaintiff.