The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-02-20 00:00:00

_ ."' ,
:M‘

STOUnBRIDGIE OBSERVER.

verdict on the question of fact. That question
could not be withdrawn frm the jury, apart from
consent, if there was any evidence fit for the con-
sideration of the jury; and here it was admitted that
there was such evidence. It was contrary to all prac-
tice and principle to withdraw the question of fact
from the jury when there was no question of law'
in the ease, and so assume to determine the whole
case. He thought this was a dangerous usurpation.
The only question reserved was, whether there was
evidence on which the jury could have found in favour
of the plaintiff on the question of fact—whether the
porters received the portmanteau—the effect of which,
it was admitted, would be that the judgment must be
for the plaintiff. He thought there was evidence for
the jury on that question, and it was fitter for a jury
to determine than for the Court. If the Court took
upon themselves to decide questions of fact and to
declare what was the common understanding and usage
of men, they might find that jury at ter jury came to
contrary conclusions on such questions. He thought
that as the Judges could not say that there warn° evi-
dencd for the jury, they ought not to decide the ques-
tion at all.

Mr. Justice Grove concurred with the majority of
the Court in favour of the Company. The case had
been reserved for the Court, with power to them to
draw inferences of fact, and if the only question was
whether there was any evidence for the jury this
power could hardly apply. But the real question
reserved with that power was whether the portman-
teau had ever been taken charge of by the company's
porters, and he thought that on that question there
was no evidence for which the jury could have reason-
ably found for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Denman also concurred. The Court
were compelled, however reluctantly, to perform in
this case the functions of a jury, and he did not think
that there was evidence to warrant the conclusion that
the porters ever had charge of the portmanteau.
Mr. Justice Archibald also agreed with the majority
of the Court in favour of the company, though he
agreed with his brother Brett as to the inconvenience
of the Court assuming the functions of juries. The
Court, however, were called upon to do so in this case,
and they must apply their common sense and in-
telligence to the question. He quite agreed with the
view of the law taken by the Court, that railway com-
panies were liable for the loss of luggage left in charge
of their porters by their passengers; but he came to
the conclusion that the portmanteau was never given
in charge to the porters, and therefore he agreed in the
judgment of the majority of the Court.
Judgment for the company.

clerk, died last week at the age of 88. In
this village of Harbottle, with 120 inhabitants,
there, are 37 children under 14 years of age and
during the last 20 years no child has died, and for
nearly four years no one until the case just mentioned.
I may add another instance of the large pronortion of
children existing and their immunity from death. A
farmer in this parish and his three shepherds, who
have occupied their present situations nearly 30 years,
have among them 47 children, and not a single death
has occurred in these families. The inhabitants have
abundance of plain, substantial food, excellent water,
good residences as a rule, and regular but not severe
work in a pure, bracing atmosphere, and are highly in-
telligent and generally abstemious. lam indebted to
the Rev. A. Proctor, who has been upwards of 40 years
the esteemed vicar, for the corroboration of the statistics
of this parish, which I have now given you."