The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-09 00:00:00

TO OUR RIADERS.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

A !ate edition of the Express in published every
evening during the racing meson, containing the
results of the day's races.

Ir may be remembered that some months ago
Mr. Pvis, a county magistrate and a gentleman of
property, was killed by en accident on the Great
Northern Railway. An action was brought by
Mr. Pile' widow, and • verdict was returned by
the jury for 13,0001. This was not the ordinary
case of a professional man losing his life, or of a
wife and family being deprived of the source from
which they derived their means of living. Mr. PIM
was a man of fortune, enjoying an income from
land of some 4,0001. a year. By his death the
fortune was neither increased nor diminished—it
was merely re distributed. According to the terms
of the marriage settlement the wife became entitled
to 1,0001. • year, and each of the eight children
eame into possession of 1001. • year, whilst the eldest
son came into possession of an income of 4,0001.
It is obvious, indeed, that the death of Mr. Prx,
although • benefit to the eldest son, proved •
serious loss to his wife and the other children.
The jury estimated this loss at 13,0001., which
was accordingly apportioned amongst the wife and
the eight children, the eldest eon being altogether
excluded from any portion. This result was far
from satisfactory to the Railway Company, and ac-
cordingly • motion was made in the Queen's
Bench for the purpose of having the question
thoroughly considered, and that motion has been
granted. The question is both interesting and
important, the more so because this is the first
case in which an action brought under such cir-
cumstances has involved damages so considerable.

It is well known that before the Act of Par-
liament which bears the name of the late Lord
Caxrsew. wee peened, the legal maxim that a
personal action dies with the person continued in
force. Under that system, if a man sustained
an injury by the neglect of another and lived, he
was entitled to receive compensation from the
person who inflicted it ; but if the injury was so
severe as to deprive him of life, he way no longer
entitled to any compensation whatever. This was
unjust and absurd : an injury does not cease to
be an injury by ita excessive severity. To remedy
this defect, therefore, it was enacted that " when-
" ever the death of a person shall be caused by
" such wrongful act, neglect, or default as
" would (if death had not ensued) have entitled
" the party injured to maintain an action for
" damages, the person who would have been liable
" to such action may be sued by the executor, for
" the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and
" child of the deceased ; and the jury may give
" damages proportionable to the injury resulting
" from such death, to be divided among the par-
" ties for whose benefit the action is brought."
Accordingly, Mrs. I've brought an action, for the
benefit of herself and children, because if Mr. PYX
had lived he might have brought an action against
the Railway, and because by his death their means
of living were reduced.
Now, the question is, whether this is the mean-
ing of the Act of Parliament, or if it is the meaning,
whether it ought not to be in some degree altered.
Considering the mere justice of such a claim as
that made by Mrs. Pvis, it is diflicult to see upon
what it rests. The death of her husband left
his property undilu;nished. Had Mr. Prim been
so minded be might have disposed of his fortune
in such a manner as to have left his widow and
his children in the very same position which they
occupied during his life. If they were left in a
worse position it was not in consequence of the
railway accident, but in consequence of Mr. Pre
basing neglected to make any disposition of his '
land. It is quite intelligible that the Railway
Company should make up whatever actual loss of
property they may have occasioned, but it is by no
means so intelligible that they should be made to
repair the neglect or injustice of a man who has im-
properly. distributed his property. If it were proposed
to punish the Railway Company by fine, the mode
in which the fine ought to be distributed might be
open to question. But in a civil action the actual
lose directly due to the accident ought to be
the measure of damage ; and the liability of a
railway company ought not to depend upon the
question whether or not the person killed has made
a judicious settlement. What would be thought
of a man who left a will in these terms : that his
pmparty should be cbstributcd in certain propor-
tions amongst his family, but that if he perished
by an accident it should all go to the eldest
son ? And yet it is obvious that the
person who made such a will would,
under the present construction of Lord
CAMPBELL.% Act, be acting with eminent sagacity ;
for, if he did happen to perish by an accident, the
person or the company responsible for his death
would be liable to provide for his family. It is
difficult to suppose that the learned lawyer who
drew the Act seriously contemplated so absurd
a conclusion. Nor, indeed, as it seems to us,
do the words of the Act imply any such cones+•
(pence. The Act speaks of the right which the