The Express.
London, England, 1863-08-07 00:00:00

mins r. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages for injuries
received by the plaintiff owing to the negligence of the de-
fendants.

Mr. Lush, Q C., and Mr. Hansen were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. ltocbfort Clerk, and
Mr. Hall were for the company.
The defendants admitted their liability, and the only
question, therefore, was what amount of damages the
plaintiff was entitled to. It appeared that Mr. Myers had
previously carried on a very extetsive business at Southamp-
ton as a printing engineer, and that he bad invented a prey,
called the Caxton press, which he had patented, and it was
alleged that at the time the accident occurred he was very
extensively employed in his business, and had to travel to
all parts of the country to superintend the fitting up of his
machines. He bad oorasioo, it appeared, in January last to
go to Kelso, and in returning he mopped at York, where he
bad an engagement to fulfil in connexion with his occupa-
tion, and on the morning of the 6th of January he booked him-
self to London. The train arrived safely to the station at Not-
tingley, where there is • junction to Leeds, but at the
moment it was passing • Leeds train came up on the janc-
tioo line, and a most fearful accident occurred the last-
mentioned train dashing completely through the other,
shattering one of the carriages literally to atoms, dividing
the train, and driving the other carriages one upon the other.
The consequence of this was that one of the yeasengen by the
Great Northern train was killed, and the plaintiff andameral
others were moat seriously injured, and but that it fortu-
nately happened thecarriagethat immeshed was empty, the
loss of life mast have been much more onions. The plaintiff
received • very severe cat on the head, but at first it was
thought that he bad not received any material injury, and
he was enabled to render assistance to the other pamengera,
but io the course of a short time it was found necessary to
remove him to an hotel near the station, where he became
insensible, and it was ascertained that he had sustained
concussion of the brain. After a short time be was removed
to his own home, and it turned out that he bad received in-
ternal injuries of a serious description, end that his
spine was also affected by the accident. The result of
this was, according to the case for the plaintiff, that he
had been nimble to attend to his business as
he did before, and that he had, ooasequently,
lost • great portion of it and had suffered a very consider-
able pecuniary lam; and it was stated that although he had
exerted himself and endeavoured to attend to hi. businora,
he found himself utterly unable to do mowing to the inju-
ries be had received. Several medical gentlemen were
examined, who confirmed the evidence of the plaintiff as to
the nature of hie injuries ; and they also stated that to
give him any chance of recovery it would be necessary that
he should entirely refrain from any business for several
months ; and that even then it would be doubtful whether
he would be perfectly restored to health.
Mr. Hawkins made, as usual, • very able speech to the
jury in mitigation of damages
Baron Bramwell summed ap. and the jury retired to de-
liberate. Tbey were absent for neary two hours ; and
upon their return into court they found for the plaintiff,
with 1,6601. damages.

GANDY MID WIFE V. MIDRIB.

This was an action of a similar character to the last.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Dlr. Shaw were for the
plaintiffs ; and Strom.' Shoe and lir. Lush, Q.C., for the
defendant.

The mule plaintiff, who is a coschsmith, brought this
action to recover darorges from the defendant for injuries
sustained by his wife through her leg having slipped
between the bars of an iron grating in front of a house be-
longing to the defendant. It appeared that Mr. Jobber,
who is the proprietor of Long's Hotel, Bond-street, is the
owner of some bourns in Lee-street, Burtnn-cresoent, and
the cue on the part of the plaintiff was, that having occa-
sion to cross an iron grating that was in front of one of those
bounce, her foot slipped between the bars, which it was re-
presented were so wide apart as to render them dangerous
for pavers-by, and that she thereby injured her leg very
much. The grating that was complained of was produced
in court, and the jury in the course of the case expressed
their opinion that it was not only dangerous as regarded the
space between the bars, but also on account of some of the
bars being loose in the sockets, and liable to be pushed
asunder a considetable distance.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
654, but souse questions of law were reserved.
There will be six special jury cases placed on the list to be
disposed of today (Friday), commencing with No. 13, " De
Cuadra v. Norris and Another," but as the cases have
hitherto appeared to be of the most trumpery character, and
in a great many instances to Le virtually undefended causes,
it is not at all improbable that some of the cases on the list
for to-day may be either withdrawn or settled, so that it
will be well for all the parties who intend to try their
mums to be ready to do so at the sitting of the court. All
the common jury causes down to No. 73 will Le on the list
for trial before Baron Channel'.