The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-04-06 00:00:00

AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

At the Leeds Assizes, the cause of "Exley e. March" has
been heard, and was a remarkable action for personal in-
juries aribillg front a neglect to fence machinery.

The plaintiff, Joseph Exley, is a lad of sixteen years
of age, and he was employed in the defendant's paper-
mills, near Barnsley, as a back tender. It was his
ordinary duty by means of a hand-screw to adjust the
felt upon the cylinders upon which the paper was
made. In Passing over the cylinders the felt would
sometimes become curled over and would require to
be straightened. The boy's story was that the de-
fendant's managing man, Mr. Hollingsworth had said
to him, "Mr. Marsh has lost time enough, and you
must pull it straight yourself with your hands." He
was turnin4 to go and ask the machine workman to
come and do it, when Hollingsworth ordered him to do
it himself. Hollingsworth has since died. In attempt-
ing to straighten the felt the boy's arm was caught
between the cog-wheel and the cylinder. He was
fearfully crushed, and in the end he had to have the
arm amputated.
In cross-examination a stamped te.:cipt for £2O in full
of all demands, and acknowledging that the accident was
the boy's fault, was shown to him and he swore that
he never saw the document or signed his mark to it.
His mother also swore "before God and man" that
she never saw the paper.
The defendant and the managing clerk in his office
were called, and swore that the paper had been read
over to the mother and son, and that both had signed
their mark. This fact had been pointed out to the
solicitors first employed by the plaintiff, and he had
subsequently resorted to his present solicitor.

Mr. Field, Q.C. (for the defendant), submitted that
there was no case for the jury. First, there was no
personal neglect on the part of the defendant, Hollings-
worth being a mere fellow-servant; secondly, the
plaintiff undertook the service with all its ordinary
risks, and the machinery was not fenced when he
entered the employment ; thirdly, there was con-
tributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff; and,
fourthly, no fencing was required, as the Factory Acts
only applied to "mill gearing," and the present cog-
wheel and cylinder were not within the words of the
statute.

His Lordship decided that the came ought to go to the
jury.
For the defendant— besides Mr. Marsh and his clerk,
who contradicted the plaintiff and his mother as to the
receipt—several witnesses were called to show that the
boy had said that he had slipped off a pipe as be was
going to pull the felt right, and that the mother and
boy acknowledged it was the boy's own fault. It was
a most dangerous thing to attempt to do, and very im-
proper of the boy to attempt it. The Alb-Inspector of
Factories did not consider that this part of the ma-
chinery was within the terms of the Factory Act.
That Act provides that 'mill gearing" shall be
fenced, and in the interpretation clause "mill gearing"
is to comprehend "every shaft, &c., or wheel by which
the motion of the first moving power is communi-
cated to any machine appertaining to the manufactur-
ing processes." The cylinder and cog-wheel in question
were, so to say, the last process in the manufacture, and
the cog wheel was a fixed part of that cylinder, and re-
volved with it. It was alleged that the machine was
improperly coasts acted, inasmuch as it was quite pos-
sible to have a self-acting guide for the felt attached to
the machine which weld. obviate the necessity for
touching the felt with the hand. It was shown that
self-acting guides were used, but it was denied that
they were used in Yorkshire or generally throughout
I the country.

Mr. Seymour, Q.C. (for the plaintiff), contended that
the cylinder and cog-wheel were within the Act and
ought to have been fenced, and that Hollingswurth was
not a mere servant, but was sole manager.
Ills lordship, in the course of a very clear summing
up, said there were two counts in the declaration. The
first alleged that the defendant ought to have fenced
the machinery, and did not do so. As to that count
they would consider, first, whether the cog-wheel and
cylinder were "mill gearing" within the Act, in which
case the machine ought to have been fenced; and,
secondly, whether the plaintiff was pursuing his
ordinary occupation. The second count alleged that
the plaintiff was in the defendant's employ, but the
machines were so defectively constructed in conse-
quence of the absence of self-acting guides to the felt
that the plaintiff was injured. As to that count they
would consider—first, was the machinery defectively
constructed, and if they thought it was defectively
constructed, then, secondly, did the negligence of the
plaintiff contribute to the accident.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant upon all
the issues.