The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-01 00:00:00

ACTION AGAINST the GREAT EASTERN

RAILWAY COMPANY.

On Monday, in the Queen's Bench Division of the
High Court of Justice, the hearing of the case
Brereton v. Great Eastern Railway Company, ad-
journed from Friday in last week, was brought to a
conclusion, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff
for £4OOO. The action, which was one of negligence,
possessed a peculiar interest by reason of the curious
nature of the accident out of which the claim arose.
By some means or other, which the experienced wit-
nesses called for the railway company confessed they
were unable to explain the nut which secures the
balance weight under an engine in its position became
unscrewed at a moment when the train was travel-
ling at the rate of 50 miles an hour, and the balance-
weight, which weighed 3 cwt., thus becoming detached,
bounded across the line and came in violent collision
with a train which happened to be passing at that
moment, and in which the plaintiff was seated. His
injuries were of a very serious character, and his
case was presented to the jury as one calling for heavy
damages, supposing they were agreed that the balance-
weight became detached through the negligence and
want of care of the defendants.

The evidence was virtually concluded on Friday,
and on Monday m orning Mr. Webster, Q.c., and Sir
Harding° (iffarci having addressed the- jury re-
spectively,

Mr. Justice Hawkins summed up. Dealing with
a point which had been taken by the plaintiff during
the case, that it would have been safer and better
to have used two balance-weights rather than one, as
was the practice on the London and North-Western,
the learned judge was of opinion that practically
there was very little difference between one and- two
weights, and that the real questions for the jury
would be—first, whether there was a want of care in
not keeping the nut secure by riveting or some other
appliance; and next, supposing they were of opinion that
it was not an improper thing to use abalance-weight and
that there was no want of care in the construction of the
engine, whether after the engine was delivered into
the hands of the company there was not a want of
care in not looking to see that the nut was firmly
screwed up before the engine started' on its journey
on the day of the accident, the evidence for the
defendants upon this point being that the nut being a
fixture and not a moving part of the engine it was not
actually tested before a journey, although in common.
with every part of the engine it came tmder inspection.

The jury retired to consider these questions, and,
after an absence of an hour, returned into court with.
a verdict for the plaintiff for £4OOO.

Being asked by the learned judge under which
head of negligence they found their verdict,

The Foreman replied that they were unanimous
that there was a want of ordinary care in neglecting
to see that the nut was properly screwed up before
the journey, but that as to the other point, the con-
struction of the engine, there was a difference• of
opinion among them.

Judgment was then entered for the plaintiff, but
execution was stayed on the application of defendant's
counsel, and after some discussion it was agreed that
a second action arising out of the same facts, brought
by General Brereton, brother of the plaintiff, which,
was next on the list, should stand over for two days.