The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-08-23 00:00:00

THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.

At the City of London Court, before Mr. Harrison,
deputy judge, and a jury, an action has been brought
by John Tipper, labourer, to recover £l5O from the
London and St. Katharine Docks Company for
injuries sustained by the alleged negligence of the
defendant company.
Mr. A. B. P. Gaskell was counsel for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Knegg for the defendant company.
In opening the case Mr. Gaskell said the plaintiff
was formerly a workman in the service of the defend-
ants, and the action was brought under the Employers'
Liability Act.
The accident happened on February 23 last, while
the plaintiff was at work in No, 8 warehouse on the
docks. The plaintiff was working on the third floor,
and was receiving a bale of wool when down came
another and struck him with great force, knocking
him down and breaking his shin bone. He would
show that instead of having two men on the floor
above where the defendant was working there was only
one.

John Tipper, the plaintiff, said on the 23rd of
February he was working in the defendant's docks.
He wavon the third floor, and his business was to
receive bales of wool as they came from the fourth
floor, and put them on a truck to be taken away by
other men. He was taking one bale away when down
came another bale and knocked him over. Ho had
previously told the man above to "hold hard," and
that he was not to send any more down. After the
accident he was taken to the hospital, where he found
his leg was broken. He remained there for about a
month, and it was on the 10th of March that he came
back to the defendant company. They gave him a
little light work for two days, but when he gave notice
to claim compensation by bringing this action they
ceased to employ him. On the day of the accident he
was put on to work by Brown, the foreman, who had
the management of the shoot where he was working.
He had to go about on crutches after the occurrence,
and was very weak now. He tried to do a little work
during the fast two or three weeks, but he had only
earned Os. or 7s. per week.
Cross-examined: Some years ago he broke his leg,
but it was not in the same place. He had done no
work except during the last two or three weeks. He
was engaged by Brown on the day in question as a
day labourer, receiving 6d. per hour. When he went
back after the accident he had sd. per hour, because
it was easy work. He was engaged by Brown and
obeyed his orders. He did not know that Brown
took contracts from the dock company to do so much
work. _ _

For the defence, Mr. negg submitted that there
was no evidence of damage to go to the jury,, and that
a nonsuit should be entered. _ _ __ _

The learned judge thought there was, and said be
should not stop the case.
Mr. Bedborough, superintendent of the wool depart-
ment of the dock, was called, and said he remembered
the accident happening, but he was not present. The
plaintiff was not at that time working for the dock
company. Brown entered into a contract with him
to do certain work, consequently the plaintiff was
employed under Brown. He was taken on by Brown
and paid by Brown. He exercised control over
Brown, but not over the men or the plaintiff. Brown
was not at this time on their books, neither did he
receive wages.
Cross-examined: Sometimes bales of wool weighed
four or five cwt., but in this particular case it weighed
*wt.
T. Brown was then called, and said he was engaged
by the dock company at 225. per week, but during the
%tool season he took contracts. He paid the plaintiff
in this action when he worked for the dock company
with the money received from the company for that
purpose. He also received money from the company
to pay other men.
Mr. Knegg and Mr. Gaskell agreed to leave the
case to the jury as it stood.
Mr. Knegg asked the learned judge to toll the jury
thal the plaintiff was employed by the dock company,
even assuming the evidence given by the defendants
to I,e true. - . _ _

the learned judge summed up, and the jury found
for the plaintiff for £lOO.

THE " BEST-LOOIUNG" SEASIDE RESMlT.—Broad-
stairs.—Funvy Folks.
After along drouth in the Western States there
camo. a heavy rain, during which one farmer observed
to another: "This is a providential rain. I hope it
will bring up everything out of the ground." To this
the other replied, with a dubious shake of tha head:
can't say as I- agree with you there, neighbour.
I've buried -three wives in the ground, and I Ethould
trOrtgilv 114 to to seo them all CQMO 1;',0 agaip.,"