The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-07-05 00:00:00

_ .
_

SATURDAY, JULY sth, 1884

home, and he went to the back kitchen to fetch his
wife. Mr. Brearley came in and said "You'll stop
and take a bit of supry.r with me," and he said"!
don't care if I do." They all dined together.
.Mr.
Brearley freely gave them what they had to driLl:
They sat talking till the officer came in about a
/to 12. He heard what the officer said to Mr
Brearley. The knives and forks were on the table;
the plates were on a side bench.—By the Bench:
He was quite satisfied that there were some knives
on the table.—Ellen Beebe said that on the 18th
May she went to Brearley's. It was her birthday
and Mrs. Brearley asked her to stop and have a bit
of supper. She had the invitation about a quarter
to ten.—Mrs. Brearley said she recollected Mrs.
Bache coming into her back kitchen. Aftter she
had been there sometime Mrs. Bache said "I am
41 years old to-day." Witness said " Surtly you
vill stay and have some supper with us." She
sent for Mrs. G,aineer and Bridget Pearsen came
with hen—Thomas Brearley said the abwe named
stopped to have some supper with them in con-
sequence of it being Mrs. Bache's birthday.—lbe
Bench retired to consider and on returning Mr.
Firmstene said they had given the case their best
attention and had come to the conclu,ion that Mr.
and Mrs. Bache were invited to stay supper, and
that Mrs. Pearson and Grainger were specially sent
for. They had decided to di-miss the case, but it
had been properly brought forward by the police.
They warned Mr. Brearley of giving supper parties
on such •short notice.

THE I TAMMY OF EMPLOYERS.

In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
of Jits,ice on Tuesday, before Mr. Juptice Mathew
and Mr. Justice Day, the case of Surrnan v. the
0, oat W :;!„rtl it ilway Company, came on for
he ring Ir. is au appe .1 Uoin ih County Court
Judge al Si °ark idge, 1-rit ) had i.warded the plaintiff
2,163 damages. Mr. R. S. Wright appeared on be-
half of the defendants in suppoit of the appeal ; Mr.
Und rhi 1, Q.O , and Mr. Johnston Watson opposed.
Vtr. Underlidl said the action was brought by the
widow of a yardsman in the employ .of the Great
IVesti-rn Railway Company to recover damages
under the Employers' Liabdity Act, for the loss of
her husband, who was killed whilst performing his
ordinary work, a portion of which was to direct
shunting operations, and whilst he was crossing
the line he was struck by an engine and killed. On
the h2aring °tithe case it was contended that there
wits no evidence of negligence to go to the jury,
i.nd it was now contended that the County Court
judge ought to have ordered a non-snit, Mr. Under-
hit, however, contended that there was no evidence
of negligence, whilst there was none of contributory
negligence. It was proved that the engine driver
saw the deceased, but did not sound his whistle.
Mr. Wright said the deceased got in front of the
engine when it was only 21 yards off, and there was
no time to sound the whistle. Mr. Underhill said the
man in the performance of his duty, and it would be
very hard if the poor woman were deprived of the
compensation awarded h r for the loss of her hus-
band. Mr. WA. hi read over the evidence taken in
the case and cited at considerable length previous
judgements in reference to "contributory negligence"
and the case not being concluded at the rising of
the Court was adjourned till Thursday, when it was
again brought on and their lordships reversed the
decision below, and entered judgment for the de-
fendants, They, however, granted the plaintiff
cave to appeal.