The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-04-03 00:00:00

DUDLEY.

DAMAGES AGAINST THE ROWLEY LOCAL BOARD.
—At the County Court on Monday—befon Judge
Sir Rupert KeAle—Mr. Robert Griffiths, surgeon,
Nethetton sued the Rowley Regis Local Board of
Health to recover -...210 for damages to his phmton.
Mr. Ward was for plaintiff, and Mr. Wright for the
defendants—in opening, Mr. Ward said the plain-
tiff hid met with an accident in consequence of the
negligence of the defendants or their servants, who
had left a hole in the middle of the read at Wright's
Lane.—The plaintiff was called, and said that in ,
August last he was driving near the bridge and
f. a w two men at work excavating the road. bridge,
at the bridge his groom called out that there was a
hole in the ground,and before witness could get out
of the way his vehicle was damaged. It was im-
posible for him to see the hole from the driving
seat, and there was no indication or warning of any
excavatioi. The repairs came to £lO. Cross ex-
a,:eined : There was room to pass if he had seen the
hole.—Mr. Wright then proceeded to argue that
Mr. Griffiths had not used ordinary care, but had
been guilty of contributory negligence.—His Hon—
our said the most recent decision in the House of
Lords showed that the plaintiff must be aware of
the danger to bring him within the meaning of
contributory negligence.—Mr. Wriglt then argued
that Mr. Griffitts must have seen, in broad daylight
a cartload of soil thrown out of the hole; and
further, his groom warned him of the danger.—His
Honour again said that there was no indication on
the part of the defendants of the hole. There was
• no contributory negligence.—Ultimately the solici-
tors agreed to a verdict of £7 10s, to include costs
ACTION AGAINST A TRAMWAY COMPANY.—At the
same court, William Dinnon, late manager to the
Dudley, Brierley Hir, and Stourbridge Tramways
Company, sued the directors for £45 2s lid, as
commission on certain transactions connected with
hii office, and money out of pocket. Mr. Waldron
was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stubbins (instructed
by Messrs. 13rabaaon and Cameron) was for the
defendants.—After a discussion as to the sum on
which the plaintiff could claim, the Judge disallowed
a sura of £ll odd. The plaintiff was called, and
said he had a book of petty cash, and from time to
time he was supplied with sums of money to settle
small accidents. He had £5 and other sums from
Mr. Woodward. the secretary, to disburse according
to his discretion. He paid ..t3 in a case where a
child had been killed and £3 for'another,.£3 damage
to sheep, and £3 15s to Mr. Matthews, coachbuilder

Harts Hill. The last item the secretary declined to
pay, stating that lie did not remember any accident
to Messrs. Skelding's cart, which Mr. Matthews had
inaired. Mr. Stubbins cross•exarnined with a
view to show that the plaintiff had no power to
settle claims until the directors had decided on the
.subject and written him, He denied the suggestion.
—His Honour asked whether there was any reason
for saying that the man Dinnon had not acted
fairly or honestly with the company; and if he had
net, why did they quibble as to the amount? It
appeared to him that Dinnon had paid the money
and settled the claims to the best of his discretion

and in good faith; therefore the company would
have to pay him. Mr. Stubbins said there was
more behind the affair than a settling up after
Dinnon WAS leaving, but he had no instruction to
bring the matter forward. Finally his Honour
decided that Dinnon was entitled to 2 per cent. on
£1,193 and the other items, making a total of £33
18.3 lid, with costs on that sum.