The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-08-06 00:00:00

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

At the Maidstone Metres, last week, the cause of "For-
man and Wife ri the Mayor and Corporation of Canterbury,"
was heard, and was au action to recover comp. SAtioll Er
the consrquences (.1 all injury occasioned to the female
pla.inmtff through her bring thrown out of a cart by its run-
ning against a heap of atones ou the side of a road close to
Can terbur y.
Mr. Ha. kin., Q C., and Mr. Archibald were for he
plain-
tiff; and Mr. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. G. Francis were for the
defendants.

The action was brought against the Corporation as
the Local Board of Cauterbury. Tie Burveyor of the
highways had placed on the side of one of the roads
leading out of the city a heap of stones. As the plain-
tiffs were driving a carton a very dark night, the cart
ran up agaiuBt it and was upset; they were thrown
out, and the wife was very severely and permareetly
injured. Her collar-bore was fractured and her
ehoulderibone put out. She suffered intense pain
through laceration of the nerves; there was para-
lysis of the muscles, and the eminent surgeon,
Mr. Adams, gave it as his opinion that it was
more than probable she would lever ri mover the
use of her arm. The result was considerable
pecuniary loss to the husband, not only in medical ex.
pelages but in the loss of her assistance in the house. A
housekeeper had to be employed at a salary if £2o..i.ed
with board arid lodging at an expense of £25 a year.
The medical expellers and the carriage to horse and
cart came to Eiti6, and further medical attendacee
would be required. It having been foundout that the
plaintiffs had been miginally married in wrong names,
the defendants pleaded in denial of the marriage, so as
to preclude their right to recover. It turned out,
however, that after the original marriege in wrong
names (which had been by reason, it was alleged, of
oppoeition of parents), they were reeularly re-married,
and the plea was abandoned, though not without revere
comments upon it. It appe wed that the road was
only 20 feet wide, and that the heap of atoned projected
seven feet into it.

--.„
The case having been proved, as above stated, Mr.
Denman submitted that it was not sufficient in point
of law,_ as the accident had ariden through the dark-
ness of the night, which was the act of God.
The Lord Chief Justice: Di you ask me to rule as
• matter of law, that if a man puts a heap of stones
projecting into the roadway, and it upsets a vehicle, it
is to be deemed the act of God? (Laughter.) I shall
certainly rule no such thing, but shall leave it to the
jury, and I am nit aware that any one hae a right to
lsave heaps of stones in the road, but whoever deco so
takes the risk of accidents wising from it in the dark-
ness of the iii;ffit.

Mr. Hawkins, in reply on the part of the plaintiff.,
severely denim cod the conduct of the defence. Firat
it was said, "True, you have been severely injured,
but then you were not regularly married." Ariel next
it was said, "It was the act of God." (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case to
the jury, said no authority bad been cited to show
that no had a right to place heaps of stones OD the
side of a road at aft But assuming that there was such
a right, at all events it must be a question whether it
was reasonably exercised ; and the question would be,
whether it aas resaonable to leave a heap of stones
projecting seven feet in a road 20 feet wide close to a
city like Canterbury, or whether it was negligent to
leave such an obstruction on the highway? That was
for the jury to consider' and if they thought it heeli-
gent, them in the next place, did the accident :Aliso
fr m it? If so, then it could riot be called inevitable
accident or the sot of God. It did not appear that
there ions any other cause for the amident except the
cart ronniog up a g tinet the heap of stones in the dark;
and if, therefore (lie leavin,-; the stones was negligence,
then the accident arose from the negligence of the de..
fondant,, and if so, they were forthe consequen-
ces, which h
no doubt were very serious.
The jury, after a little consultation, retired a short
time to consider their verdict, and in the result gave
verdict for £l,lOO.
Mr. bemoan applied for a stay of execution, but
The Lord Chief Justice said there were no groueds
for it. There was gross negligence, and the injury
was grievous,