The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-07 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCE

Bitting in &MO in Michaelmas Term.—(Belore Lord Chief
Justice Cockburn and Justices Wightman and Blackburn.)

PTII R. GMAT NORTHERN RAILWAY.-ACCIDENT.

This action was brought to recover damages in con-
sequence of the death of Mr. Pyre, a county inagiatrue
and a gentleman of property, who was killed by
an accident on the Great Northern Railway on the 21n1
April, 1860, near the Hatfield Station. It was tried before
the Lord Chief Justice at Westminster in June last, slim
the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, who is the widow
and executrix of the deceased, with 1:1,0001. damages, which
they apportioned to her and eight children, the ninth child,
who is the eldest son and inherits the great bulk of his
father's property, being excluded.
Mr. Hawkins now moved, by leave reserved, to set aside
the verdict, aid for a new trial, on the ground that there
was no pecuniary, damns within the meaning of the stands
known as ' Camp Act: and, therefore, no came
of action. He also moved on the grounds that the damages
were excessive, and that the verdict was against the weight
of evidence.

The Lord Chief Justice—There was strong evidence on
both eider', but the case was fairly tried out, au.l if in every
action of this kind where negligence is alleged, and the On'
dance is conflicting, there is to be a new trial, the number of
courts will have to be increased. The question was for the
jury, who listened patiently and attentively to the evidence,
and the cue was well argued on both sides. I should not
have quarrelled with the verdict if it had been the other
way, and I certainly do not quarrel with It as it now stands.
Mr. Hawkins—lf your lordahip thinks that the verdict
wassatisfactory, I will not pus that point.
The Lord Chief Justice—l cannot refrain from sayirr
that the weight of evidence was agninst the defendants, and
that the verdict was right.
Mr. Hawkins—Mr. Bidder gave remarkably strong evi
deuce in favour of the defendants. •
The Lord Chief Justice—On the other hand, it wa.
known to the defendants or their servant., that there vas
a serious defect in the rail, which caused the accident. I
think the court ought not to allow the verdict to be die
turbed.

Mr. Hawkins said was a case of considerable importabo
to railway companies ; because if such damages were to is
recovenkblo where there was no culpable or crimini
negligence, it would be almost impossible for them to cart
on their business.
_ . . .

The Lord Chief Justice—That is a matter into which tie
court cannot inquire.
Mr. Hawkins said that Mr. I'ym, at the time of hi
death, had an income of 3,870/. Ha had secured by math
meat 1,(1001. per annum to his wife, and 20,000 f. we
invested at 4 per cent., for the benefit of eight of the chi
dew, giving them IC3/. a year each at his death. Ti
eldest eon became possessed of the real estate. The elde
child was a daughter, 11 years old, and the youngest to
months. at the time of the accident.

Ths Lord Chief Justice—The deceased WAS only 41 yer,
old, and it wu probable that he would have lived sea:
years, during which the whole family would have derivkil he
unfit from his income. He is killed, and the eldest so:
conies into an estate of about 4,000/. a year ; the widow se:
the other children only deriving the benefit of the settle
meat. The question of fact was whether the widow an:
the eight children suffered any pecuniary lose under the at
and the jury found that they had.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said he hnd ruled in a aim&
case that reasonable expectations might be considered hi.
jury, and it had not been questioned.
The Lord Chief Justice said the case had, in all probe
bility, come before the court in consequence of the magi:
tude of the damages.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said the lady, instead of enjoy*
her husband's fortune, was a dowager, and the eight chit
dren instead of being the sons and daughters of the reigr
log squire were only the brothers and sisters. The posits& '
of the fondly was therefore changed by Mr. Pyin's death•
Mr. Hawkins said the statute contemplated wane,
more than putting the surviving relatives iu the same pa
tio° as regarded the bringing of an action as the ile.e.wd
would have been in if he bad been maimed for Lie,
triable to pursue his profession.
The Lord Chief Justice said it was a case of sufficieli,
magnitude and importance to be discussed, and the learet
counsel bad better t►ke a rule. .

_ _ ....
A rule was then granted upon the different point, it
eluding that of eXCCIIIIiVO damages.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Chappell.)
OTLADE V. VIZ NORTH EASTERN RAIL% AT COROT
PRACTICE.
Mr. Oxisde, the plaintiff in this action, 5104
in person for a rule to show *Lure why Vg
mansuit directed by Mr. Baron Martin should sot
set aside, and that a new trial might be had. ??
moved in point of form, but with the slew of having 15'
motion directed to stand over until there could be as sr
peal on the point of law which bad been raised before tbe
t of Error.
Mr. Baron Martin—ln this case the Court of Comm.*
Pleas has decided against the plaintiff who has brought
to
WIC of error. so the case must stand over.
The Lord Chief Baron—As the Court of Common Ilea
has decided against you, we should, if we gave judgu',l
now, give judgment against you, ait will not be et;4°"
your interest that the cane should stand over.
Mr. Oolade—l am quite contented that it should be e 4
my lord.
Th. Lord Chief Baron—Then, so let it be.
TM cam accordingly stands over.

I