The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-05-14 00:00:00

CELEBRATING AN HISTORICAL
ANNIVERSARY.

In London (before Mr. Justice Bowen and a common jury),
the cause of Coombe and ;Wife v. Moore" has been tried.—
We take the following report of the case from The Times :

The plaintiff (Mr. Coombe), who has been for many
years cashier in Scott's Bank, lives at 10, Norfolk-
road, St. John's-wood. The defendant, Mr. George
Washington Moore, who is the manager of the
Christy's Minstrels and the proprietor of that under-
taking, lives at Moore-house, Finchley-road, St. John's.
wood. The plaintiff's house is about 200 yards from
the defendant's. The defendant is an American, and
on the 4th of July last he was desirous of celebrating
the anniversary of the declaration of the independence
of the United States of America. Ho had invited
several friends to his house on the occasion, and part
of the entertainment which he prepared for his
guests was a display of fireworks. The 4th of July
was Sunday, and when the Sunday had passed,
between twelve and one o'clock on the morning of the
sth, some fireworks were let off in the defendant's
garden. Four persons who lived in the neighbour-
hood were called' who heard the reports of the fire-
works, and they described the first report as having a
sound like an explosion; and two police officers were
also called, who stated that they iav about 12 or 14
rockets, which had been let off on tie occasion in ques-
tion. The plaintiffs were aroused by the first report,
and Mr. Coombe went down,stairs, followed by Mrs.
Coombe. While he was in the garden, he saw four or
five rockets, the sticks and cases of which fell into his
garden. Mrs. Coombe was much alarmed, and an
attack of hysteria supervened, which was followed by
neuralgia. Under thetoctor's advice she went by sea
for a trip to Ireland, which improved, though it did
not quite restore, her health. The first application
made to the defendant for compensation was made
through the plaintiff's solicitor, and was not sent till
September. On the close of the case for the plaintiffs,
it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the
case should be withdrawn from the jury on the ground
that the consequences which were alleged to have re-
sulted from the acts of the defendant were not such as
might reasonably have been contemplated.

His Lordship, however, declined to stop the case,,
and submitted two questions to the jury—namely,
whether the acts of the defendant wete reasonably
calculated to interfere with the health of people living
in the neighbourhood, having regard to people's ordi-
nary habits of life, and whether the injury to the
health of Mrs. Coombe was the consequence of the
acts of the defendant ; and he directed them that the
defendant would not be,liable for an interference with
the eomfort of the plaintiffs unless their comfort was
so far interfered with as to affect health.

Aftr a brief consultation in the box, the foreman
of the jury stated that there was no prospect of their
agreeing upon a verdict. They then retired, and,
after having been absent for about an hour, they re-
turned and answered the questions which had been
left to them in favour of the plaintiffs. They assessed
the damages at one farthing.