The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-13 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Nu Penn.—Before Mr. Justice Coltman and a Common Jury.
Heinle O. Wien.—COMPENSATION FOR Till 1.0114 07
A Wire.—Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Farrar for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Scejeant Bytes and Mr. Ogle for the de-
tandem. The plaintiff in this case was a waterman attached
to a cab-stand, and he brought his action under the 9th and
10th Vict., cap. 93, to recover compensation in damages for
an injury which he and his children had sustained by reason
of his wife's untimely death. The facts were briefly these :
On the 26th Oct. last, about 9 o'clock at night, the plain-
tiff's wife and her sister had been to the railway station at
Paddle n, and were returning home with a niece who had
arrived 7
the train. In passing through Victoria-grove-
terrace, ayswater, one of the females dropped her cuff, and
whilst she went to look for it, the deceased stood opposite to
the house No. 9, which belonged to the defendant, and was
then in an unfinished state. Suddenly the deceased
disappeared, and her companions found she had fallen into
the are., which was not protected by any railings, or even
by temporary hoarding. Assistance was procured, and the
woman, upon being removed from the area, was discovered
to be dead. The defendant being the owner of the house
where the accident happened, proceedings were commenced
against him, and his defence was, that there was no public
footway abutting upon the area as alleged in the declaration;
that, according to the authority of " Turner tr. Chadwick,"
(6 Bingham's New Cases, r. 1), the defendant had a right
to make the hole or area upon his own premises • that it was
morning when the accident occurred, and that there was
no evidence that the unfortunate woman had lost her life
through any negligence on the part of the defendant. Evi-
dence was adduced for the plaintiff to show that there was a
public footpath running close to the area, but the witnesses
varied in their statements as to the relative position of thepath
and the house. It was further proved that the deceased was
not intoxicated at the time of the accident, and that tier
death was owing solely to the unprotected state of tin area.
Evidence was also given to prove that the deceased was a
charwoman, and that she contributed as much as 2s. ed. or
3s. a day towards the support of her family, consisting of two
girls and a boy,
The learned judge, in summing up, told the jury they were
to consider whether or not there was a public footway abut-
ting upon the area, or whether the path was so situated that
passengers could not walk along it with safety, unless the
area was protected by • railing. They were also to say
whether, in their opinion, the woman's death was in any de-
gree caused by negligence or want of caution on her own
part. If they should find a verdict for the plaintiff, it would
be their duty to say what amount of damages they would
give to the husband, and how much to his children.—The
Jury retired, and after a abort absence returned into court
with a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 3001., apportioned
as fellows : 1001. to the plaintiff, 751. to each of his daughters,
and the remaining 601. to his son. Certain points of law
were reserved, upon which the learned counsel for the de-
fendant obtained leave to move the court above.