The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-08-16 00:00:00

"SIMEON v. DEWHIRST."

At the Leeds Anises, the cease of " Simeon e Dewhirst -
hes been tried, and wag an action for personal Inputs.
through a neglect in providing proper fencing to dangeroua
machinery.

The plaintiff was engaged in winding or soosning at
the defendant's manufactory. The machine is used to
unwind the cotton upon a large bobbin and wind it
upon a small reel. Certain screws called pini, no re-
quire adjustment in the process, and sometimes fly eft
suddenly and roll away n the floor. The plaintiff
lost a pinion in this wsy and stocped to get it, when
the machinery cao4ht her 'shawl, and she wads dragged
in and literally scalped. She received a compound
fracture of the skull of PO serious a nature that the
medical gentlemen who appeared for the plaintiff gave
It as their opinion that ahe would never recover. There
was • board placed in front of the machinery which,
the witnesses for the plaintiff stated, was put there to
prevent the oil getting on their clothes. This board is
loosely fixed and frequently fans. When a pinion is
lost, the girls in the factory were in the habit of remov-
ing the board to seek for the lost pinion. '1 he questions in
the case were whether the defendant bad fenced the
machinery a:cording to the Act of Parliament, and
whether there was contributory negligence on the part
of the plaintiff.
_

The learned Judge said that if this was ft dangerous
omnpation the plaintiff wee bound to take all the more
care ; and, therefore, evidence to show that the girls
were in the habit of behaving carelessly would go
against the plaintiff.
_ _

Mr. Field, Q.C. wad that he relied upon the Act
mid the fact that this shafting wee not fenced.

The de lend ant's case was that the girl bed put her hand
hidde the machine in order to retwh the lost pinion;
that the part whi di caught her was not • portion with
which women and children would come in contact in
the ordinary minree of their employment within the
meaning of the Act; and, hardly, that the machine was
properly fancied by means of the board. The defendant
had behaved with great kiniinies to the injured girl
until the case got into the lawyer's hands, when he felt
It his duly to mist the legal claim.
Hie Lordship thought that the best course would be
for • medical gentleman on each aide to go before a
gentleman of the Bar, who, with the sapiptanct of his
Lordship's not-a, would be able to may what au= the
defendant ought to pay.
This arrangemeet could not be wale to because of
the absence of the defendant.
the Lordship Paid it wee most improper in pitch a
came that the defendant should not be present. Had it
been an action about a dog or a horse be would have
bow they.

A great number of factory girls were celled, and two
of those called for the defendant stated that the plain-
tiff said at the time it was her own fault.

I---A—;,-it-n-e;;;,;,—;:u;d—wi7ma—L.ZE7macbine, and
stated that all the machines made by their firm were
similar, without any other fencing.
Mr. Field, Q C., objected to the evidence, but at
length declined to press the objection.
The witness in crow examination said that hedid not
put fencing on; that was done by other people.
eili. gel-C.6.4, inspector of Factories of the West
Riding, was called. He had never inspected it is factory
before the accident, and when be inspected it a day or
two rafter, he could not say whether the coupling was
fenced or not as it had been Finns the accident. He
was wilted if the machine without the present fence
wai sufficiently fenced, but his lordship ruled that was
a question for the jury.
After a long discussion, and a great many attempt.
to frame the queeti in in various ways it was at last
admitted, subject to objection, and it seemed that in
the opinion of the factory inspector the machine was
suffii.tiently fenced.
The jury returned • verdict to the effect that, in
their ooinion, tbe mill gearing was rot properly fenced,
but that the plaintiff had contributed to the injuries
which she had received by her own negligence. Snould
the verdict be entered for the plaintiff, the damages
were to be fixed at £75.