The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-12-01 00:00:00

DUDLEY.

THE CIATIII FOR DA3-I,97G—SE --AGAINST IRONMASTERS,
—At the County Court on Thursday, before Sir
Rupert Kettle, josh e, the case of Saint v. Baldwin
a,min came before the Court by adjournment.—
The plaintiff, a•. und-rhand puddler, sued Messrs.
Baldwin and Son, of the Swindon irenworhs,
Swindon, to recover damages for pu.sonal injuries
received whilst engaged at their works. Mr.
Homfray .(Me srs. Homfray and Holberton) ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Shakespeare for
the deft ndants —The plaintiffs case, briefly stated
was that, whilst he and another man. were en-
gaged at the works raising a furnace door by means
of,a chain,and pull--..y, a pin broke, which caused
toe door to fall, it so injuring plaintiff that one of
his hardsi had to be amputated. Defendants
• Pbaded that the accident was - causerl by plaintiff
having neglected to oil the •pulley and chain accord.
lug to instructions.—.A.,point raised was whether
, the thfendants were, . according to the let , of:
Parliament, the employers of . the plaintiff, seeing
that the latter was engaged and paid by an.iover
hand puddler named Isaac Williams; • There' was,
however, an admission.on the part of ' the defend.
ails that they were empowered to discharge the
plailitiffif they thought fit to do so. • The evidence
in the case was exhau,ted when the action was first
tried, and certain legal points 'were - argued —Mr
Shakespeare, addressing his Honour on th 3 que-tion
of whether or not the machinery, was defective,
contended that. the employer was not bound to
provide the most-improved machinery, and that . in
this, case- the defendants did all they were bound to.
He emoted several cases in support of his, conten-
tion, and argued that if . the maelv:mfery was im-
perfect atall, it was through the negligence . f the
plaintiff in not taking proper means to oil and clean
toe dirt away from it. Furth r, that if the master
employed a competent persota.„- to see that the
machinery was proper and. kept in order, the
master was freed from • responsibilhy. • , After
Tinting a number of cases to support his argument,
Mr. Shakespeare referred to the'question of damages.
—His Honour expressed the opinion tha,t. if the
plaintiff was entitled to. damages at.: all, he was
entitled to heavy damages, seeing that he had lost
his hand.—Mr. Shakespeare: • The. 'claim is for
eta/O.—His Honour,: Oh, that is -nonsense.—Mr.
Hoinfray, on behalf of the plaintiff, contended that
there was no common employment, and that all the
eas:s quoted by.., Mri .Soakespeare were all de- I
terinined by ;common employment. The injury
was caused by.a defect iu the machinery, through
wear and tear, and he contended that the ,master I
was sways liable for defects in machinery before
the passing of the Employers' - Liability 'Art I
Further, teat if the defendants had exastninecl the
machinery oftener the accident would nor 11-.ve
happened.—His Honour pointed out that tl ere • was
\no evidence cf 'Williams or 'the plaintiff k,towing
the pin was defective—At • the conelus.ou of ;the
arguments his Honour advised the solicitors -en-
gaged on each side to draw up the points of ' their
contentions for him previous to him giving judg-
• ment.—Mr. Shakespea:e intimated that if the
verdict was adverse- to the delendan's tLe .2ease
would be carried. to, the. Ccwt of Appol, .

LOCAL LAW CASE.

RiNGING THE CHANGES,

In the Court for Crown Cases Reserved on Satur-
day, where the Lord Chiff Justice and Justices
Denman, Hawkins, Watkin. Williams, and Mathew
were sittintr, their lordships had before them the
case of The Q-u en v. Ho us," which was a special

case stated for their con-iderati n by Mr. 6. vv
Hasting the Chairman of the Worcestershire.
Quarter Sessions —The prisoner Hollis was tr.ed at
the last Quarter Sessions on a charge of fare .ny of
mOhey to the amonnt of 108, the property of Charles
Parkes He was indicted jointly with William
Wicks, who pleaded ;nifty. 'the money was ob-
tained by the fraud commonly knowa as "ringing
the changes." 'I he prisoners Hollis and Wicks-
r went to an inn kept by the prosecutor, and Wicks
ask, d for 6d worth of whiskey, which was duly
:Starved. He put down 1144 a sovereign, and the
barmaid gave him 98 6.1 hange. He then said,
"Did I give you a halt sov. reign? I vtieb you vrol.ld
give it me back, as Itt ink I have chen,e," The
barmaid gave him the half-soy reigu, Out he did
not return the 9s 6d. At that moment the other
puisoner, Hollis, asked for a rigir, with which he
was served. He handed the barmaid a shilling in
payment, and she gave im the change. Wicks
next gave the gir, los in silver (9s 61 of which was
the change she bad previously given hint) and a
half sovereign, and asked Le io give him a sover-
eign for it. She took the money to the landlord
and received from him a sovereign, which she
passed to Wicks, who asked her to fasten his glove, a
request which drew from Hollis the remark, "Isn'r,
he fussy." The two prisoners and only left a few
minutes when the barmaid discovered the fraud. It
was contenOat at the trial by the counsel for pri-
soaer that the barmaid had general authority to
act for her master in such a matter as giving
change, and that as the transaction was completed
before she discovered the fraud the property in the
money had passed, and the prizoner could not be
c nvicted of theft. The Ghairtnn overruled the
objection, and the jury then found the prisoner
guilty. The ques ion reserved for the considera-
tion of the Court was whether, under the circum-
stances, prisoner was pruperly co .victed of la ceny.
Prisoner, having been previously convicted ot felony,
asentenceof twelve calendar months' imprisonment
w.th hard labour was passed, but Mr. Hastings
ordered execution to be respited pending the de-
cision of the Court upon the question reserved.
Mr. Gudson now appeared f,.r the prisoner, but
their lordships were unanimously of opinion that a
larceny was committed, and refused to quash the
convic ion.