The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-09-20 00:00:00

The Worcester County Rate amounting to
£O5B 17e 4d, was ordered to be paid.

COUNTY COURT.

Drew V. Millivard.-4t the County Court, held
on Thursday, before R. Kettle, Esq., Judge, Ed.
Drew, of Quarry Bank, brought an action against
the defendant who hi a builder of Brierley Hill,
for wrongfully placing a quantity of lime in a
street situate at Quarry Bank, called Maughn.
street. Mr. Underhill, of Wolverhampton, in-
strueted by Mr. Clulow, appeared for plaintiff,
and Mr. Stokes, of Dudley, defended. Mr. Under-
hill, in opening the case, said that he should prove
that the lime was placed on the footpath by the
direction of the defendant. That the plaintiff was
lawfully passing along the -road when he ueei-
dently fell on a quantity of lime, which got into
his eye. Plaintiff was taken to the Hospital in
Birmingham, who was told that the sight was
gone and he (Mr. Underhill) should prove by
medical evidence that the sight was entirely gone
through the lime getting into his eye. It was a
very serious toes for the boy, and he must leave it
to His Honour as to the amount of damages to be
given him. Edward Drew deposed: I was sent by
my mother one evening to go to Scriven's public-
house, it was dark and I fell into the lime on the
footpath incoming back. I did not see the heap
of lime before falling into it. Some of the lime
got into my eye, and a woman named Patience
Jones picked sue up and took me home. I cannot
see out of my eye. Cross-exautined Had not
been playing about the road during the day, but
had walked backwards and forwards and se i n the
lime during the day. William Fiddian, surveyor,
produced a plan of the road and said thcsfootpath
was four feet eight inches wide. Patience Jones, !
of Quarry Bank, said she recollected Drewfalling
into the lime on the 131st October. Heard his
cries and found him in the heap of lime, picked
him up and took him home. There was room to
pass by on the path against the wall. The lime
was about a foot high. Sarah Barnsley Nock said
that on the above date she saw a heap of lime and
sand on the footpath by Mr. Gills. The lime was
across the whole of the footpath, and could not
pass. Saw the lime on the road before the
plaintiff fell into it, and as she went for some ale
she could not pass the road, but had to walk on
the road. Mary Ann Worrell said she saw the
lime there, her feet caught in it and she went
into the horse road. Her reason was, that she
heard the cries of the boy and went to his assist-
ance. John Randle said that he was employed by
the defendant to fetch some lime, and he was to
tip it by Gills's building. De endant assisted to
tip it up across the iootpath, that was in the after-
noon. Removed the lime early next morning
with the assistance of another man, and took it to
Brierley Hill. No poison could pass without
going close to Gills house. The next morning
there was a fence round it of boards. Mary Ann
Rogers proved that she saw the lime and could
not walk on the footpath, and had to go into the
horse road. On the 6th November, went to defen-
dant's house with his mother to ask what he was
going to do for the boy, defendant said nothing;
but he was willing to pay for the surgeon's ex-
penses, but could do no more. Drew, the father
of the boy, said that he saw the lime across the
foot-road, and saw the defendants shovelling up
the lime. Said to him," What locking the stable
door a ter the horse is gone?" Defendant made
no answer, and he (plaintiff) went for Dr. Hodgson.
Have paid 35s for railway fare in taking him to
the Infirmary. Afterwards saw the defendant who
, asked him what he wanted, told him £lO and all
I expenses. Defendant said he could not do that;
but he would pay all the surgeon's expenses and
give him a. little besiilei. Janice Drew, wife of
the last witness, said that after the lime was in
his eye, Dr. }Canyon's assistant came, and then
himself, and they attended him for a fortnight.
She afterwards took the child to the Hospital,
under Mr. Cheisdiire, who examined the eye and
•iid that it had been burnt with lime, and was
afraid his sight was; gone. She continued to go
for five months, and the boy has lost his sight.
Afterwards saw the defendant who refused to give
her any assistance. T. W. Hodgson said he was
called in to attend plaintiff, and found a quantity
of quick lime in his eye, washed it out, and saw
the grains of lime. The boy is totally blind and
caused by nine. Dr. Hodgson said he had examined
the plaintiff in conjunction with Dr. Aithinead,
and the boy was totally blind. Mr. Stokes, ad-
dressed His Honour for the defence, and said that
nothing could compensate the boy for the loss of
his eye; but the father had come between them
and said that if the defendant would givehim £lO
and pay costs, he would be satisfied. But he (Mr.
Stokes) was going to contend that the defendant ,
was not liable as defendant had sublet the plaster'
to a plasterer, and if anyone was liable it would
be him, as it hail been proved by the witness who
picked him up that he fell into the liquid lime.
He should prove that the plastering was sublet to
a man named William Owen, which was in a
private corner, and contended that defendant was
not liable, as the boy got the injury by going on
to private property. Henry Millward, the defen-
dant. was sworn, and said that he had to build a
house for Mr. Gill, at Quarry Bank, and sublet the
plastering to William Owen. who put the lime and
, sand in a corner where the boy fell into. This
I witness, in answer to His Honour, said he offered
£lO to plaintiff and expenses, although he had.
sublet the work. His Honour said this must be a
verdict for plaintiff, and the next question was as
to the amount to be paid by defendant, without
breaking up his home. He should suggest that
the expenses out of pocket and allexpenses should
be paid, something given to the parents for the
trouble they had been put to, and that the solici-
tors should talk the matter over and agree upon
the amount; and that it should be placed in the
hands of Mr. Harward to put out for the benefit
of the boy. After a short consultation the attorney
for plaintiff intimated that they had agreed to
£lO paid down into Court, and £l5 for the benefit
of the child. His Honour said it WEIS a very fair,
just and reasonable offer.
Taylor v. London and North-Western Railway
Company.—At the County Court, on Thursday,
His Hononr gave judgement in the above case,
which was heard on the previous Court day. The
action was to recover the sum of .P. 35 from the
London and North-Western Railway Company, for
the detention and non.delivery of some pictures
to, the Royal Academy, which were tobe exhibited.
The plaintiff is a marine artist, and on Friday the
28th March, delivered some pictures to the London
and North-Western Railway Company, for transit
to the Royal Academy; but they were detained
until the following Wednesday, and when sent to
the Academy they were too late to be hung up for
exhibition and were refused, and plaintiff asked
for special damage on the ground that he had
probably lest the sale of one picture worth 1,150,
and another worth £2O. His Honour remarked
that it was quite true the pictures had been de-
; livcred to a clerk at the station, but the plaintiff
I did not tell him the consequence that might
happen if the pictures were not delivered in time,
and they were not delivered in the ordinary way;
and special damages were now claimed. The
learned Judge quoted several eases bearing upon
the point, which went materially to guide him in
his decision. The special damages are now claimed
on the grounds that the pictures were not hung
and that he had lost the sale of them, and claimed
from the Company. He could not give him the
damage claimed, but must give him a nominal
amount which he was sorry to say would not com-
pensate him for the exhibition of the pictures;
but should give him a verdict for XI, and ord. r
defendants to paw all costs, including conned and
attorneys' fees. I