The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-11-20 00:00:00

"GILL AND OTHERS V. THE GREAT
WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY."

In the Exchequer Division of the Supreme Court of
Judicature, the rule in the above case came on for argument,
and was a case of considerable importance as to what subjects
of damage may be considered by a jury in an action far com-
pensation under Lord Campbell's Act; the following report
of which Is from The Times:—

Mr. Lopes, Q.O , end Mr. Petherani showed cause against
the rule ; Mr. Cole, Q C., and Mr. Poole supported it.
The case was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at
the last Snring Assizes at Exeter. The action was
brought in the name of a widow and three daughters;
but the jury found that the widow was entitled to no
compensation, her condition being pecuniarily improved.
They awarded, however, £4OO to the eldest daughters,
who were the plaintiffs, and £6OO to Lthe youngest,
making a total of £1,400.
A rule was moved for and obtained on the ground of
misairection by the learned Judge in not having told
the jury there was no evidence of pecuniary damage.
The accident happened on the 28th of April, 1874,
when the train called "The Flying Dutchman," ran
into another carriage at Bristol. On the 30th ot May
Mr. Gill made his will and died on the 15th of July,
aged 63.
Mr. Lopes said the negligence was admitted by the
company; the only question would be as to the amount.
The deceased Mr. Gill had several children, many of
whom were out in life. The point of no pecuniary
damage was not taken at the trial.

The Lord Chief Baron: Mr. Cole contends that I
ought to have so directed the jury.
Baron Cleasby : And that the damages were exces-
sive because the evidence did not warrant them. _ _

The Lord Chief Baron: I might have saved the
point of no damage for the defendants at the trial; but
Mr. Cole is entitled to raise it now. The condition of
the mother was bettered in a money point of view by
her husband's death. She was quite young enough
and attractive enough to marry again, though she had
grown-up daughters. It was different with them. The
mother's age is material, as it effects the probability of
her second marriage, and that is a substantial pos-
sibility.
Mr. Lopes: The deceased by his will bequeathed
his whole property to his wife for life, including a
dwelling-house, absolutely; after her death, £3,000 to
each of his daughters.
The Lord Chief Baron: The will is not material,
except as to 28,500. The chance of the mother's marry
jog again and of a stepfather might operate to the dis-
advantage of the daughters; as, for instance, if he
turned them out of doors.
Baron Amphlett : The fact of the £3,000 is im-
portant. If they were turned out, they would still
have a reversionary interest in that sum.
Mr. Lopes: Assume the mother marries again, as
she is personally attractive and well off.
Baron Cleasby The daughters have marriage por-
tions.

Mr. Lopes: But they will have received a pecuniary
loss resulting from the death. If the father had lived,
he would have saved and left more.
_

Baron Cleaaby : He might have -spent it all.
Mr. Lopes: He was a careful man all his life.
Baron Amphlett : There is this difficulty. How can
you say it more likely the stepfather should turn them
out of doors?

Mr. Lopes: There has been a loss of reasonable ex-
pectation of pecuniary advantage from the relative if
he had remained alive. That is the true rule. There
was evidence for the jury that if the father had lived
he would have saved and not have turned the young
ladies out of doors. They lost the support and assist-
ance they would have had from their father during
the remainder of his life—ten years or more, in all pro-
bability. This is more uncertain from the mother.
Baron Cleasby : How can we say that the father
would save more than the mother?
Mr. Lopee : There is a probability of the mother's
marrying again with her good fortune. The daughters
have lost comforts, education, and property, which
they would have had during their father's lifetime
before they had a vested interest in the £3,000. The
jury considered the risk of being turned out greater
from the mother. These were matters for their con-
sideration. Could a Judge refuse to allow them to
consider them? They may have formed too high an
estimate, and the Court may think the amounts too
large. His Lordship summed up with extreme care,
and pointed out every argument on the other side.
There was no conflict as to evidence: it was' all on one
side. This case has been carefully coLsidered by the
iurY•
Petheram urged that there had been an actual
loss of income by the father's death. Mr. Gill had in-
vested money in houses at Torquay, which he fur-
nished and let himself. L., this he made £l5O a year.
Baron Cleasby : The jury by finding that the widow
had suffered no loss seemed to think there had been
none.
Mr. Petheram : She got the whole of the rest of his
income, and so was compensated. The remedy is not
for the class, but the individual, and we must see if
one is better off than the others. It is the hope of
living in another person's house at an income of £B5O
rather than the certainty of a home with £l,OOO a
year. _ -

Mr. Cole, in support of the rule, said this was an
attempt to extend the liability beyond the cases. The
contention of his learned friend was a bold one; there
was no pretence for saying there had been any pecu-
niary damage. The deceased was in delicate health;
he met with an accident which, slight at first, became
serious afterwards. He was aware of his death, and
made a deliberate disposition of his property. He left
his wife he absolute possession of a large income. His
daughters were also the objects of his bounty; and,
trusting to his wife's kindness, he had committed them
to her care, to be supported from that income. It was
rather a slander on the lady to say that she would
marry again and turn her daughters out. That was a
violent presumption ; the mother would cling to her
daughters more than the father.
The Lord Chief Baron: Suppose a child had an
annuity as long as acertain person remained unmarried,
and that person did marry, could that be recovered
as damages?
Mr. Cole: That is too remote for compensation; it
is mere speculation.
Baron Cleasby : If the Judge had directed the jury
not to take into consideration the prospect of the
mother's marrying he would have been wrong.
Mr. Cole : The Act never contemplated a case like
this. They lost one expectation, but they gained
another, and the daughters, having a vested interest
in £3,000, were in a better position.
The Lord Chief Baron: The daughters might have
married, and so lost the maintenance of their father's
house, the basis of their whole claim. It was more
likely they should marry than their mother.
Mr. Cole: The Judge should not have left the case
to the jury. We fought the question of having con-
duced to the death of Mr. Gill at first. Afterwards I