The Express.
London, England, 1855-07-09 00:00:00

ALLIOND NROI.IGINCI IN DRIVING.

1.714 N,

Mr. Collier and Mr. Kerslake appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Oros, and Mr. Lush for the defendants.
. .

This was an action partly tried on Friday, brought under
the act known as 0 Lord Campbell's Act," whereby a widow
of a person whose life is lost by the negligence of others is
entitled to recover damages for the loss she has sustained in
consequence of the death of her hubsnd. The plaintiff is
the widow of a man named Pena, a courier, and the de-
fendants are Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, the well known
carriers. It appeared from the use on behalf of the plaintiff,
that on the 25th of last March the plaintiff sou on his return
home, about 10 o'clock at night, and having arrived opposite
Trinity Church, New road, was about to cross the road to
Oenabargh-street, when be saw a van belonging to the de-
fendants coming along. He waited until it had passed and
then was crossing, when another van of the defendants
came along at a rapid pace, and as the driver turned the
corner of the street he whipped his holm. Penn was,
knocked down, and both wheels of the heavy waggon
passed over him. He was picked up and taken on a abutter
to Middlesex Hospital, when it was found upon examination
that the bone of his thigh was dreadfully crushed, and all
the interior portions much mangled. The surgeons recom-
mended immediate amputation of the limb, but Penn re-
fused his consent. The next morning, however, he requested
that the operation should be performed, and that was done
under the Wisest.e of chloroform, but the unfortunate man
died soon afterwards. The surgeon of the hospital, who was
examined, gave it as his opinion that the deceased was in
liquor at the time, but this was contradicted by other wit-
nesses, who deposed to his g 1 sobriety and temperate
habits. Oa the decease of her husband the plaintiff con-
sulted an attorney, who wrote to the defendants asking for
remuneration, to which the defendants replied that if the
widow had made the application they would have attended
to her request, but as she had put the matter in the hands
of an attorney they would defend any action she might
bring.
According to the statement of the defendant's counsel the
deceased was in liquor when the accident took place, and
he had stated at the hospital that it was an accident for
which no one was to blame.
At the conclusion of the learned counsel's speech on
Friday the further hearing of the cause was adjourned to
this day, when it was stated that the parties had consented to
I withdraw a jaror, the defendants undertaking to make the
plaintiff fair remuneration.
Mr. Justice Coleridge then laid down the following im-
portant legal doctrine affecting foot passengers and drivers.
He said that on going straight along a street the wide part
of the street was for carriages and horses, and persons on
foot desirous of crossing mast exercise due care and caution,
and wait their opportunity for crossing, hut at the corner of
• street the continuation of the middle of the street belonged
as mush to foot passengers as carriages, and a foot passenger
had as much right to tell • dricer to wait for him as for •
driver to make him wait. As there was a great mistake in
the general opinion on this subject this could not be too
widely known.