Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-13 00:00:00

used on such occasions. CroFs.examined by Mr.
Monck : He was paid a daily fee by the East
Lancashire Company. He was paid in the same way by
some companies, and d'fferently by others. The receipt
or agreement was drawn up by himself. The form was
given him some time ago by Mr. Wheeler. (Great laugh-
ter) —Mr. Wheeler being in this case one of the counsel for
the plaintiff. It was the " common form," and he used it
in hundreds of cases. There we 'e 250 persons injured in
the Sutton tunnel, and he settled nearly all the cases in
the " ctmmon form." (Laughter.) Mr. Monck : Is it
your practice to "use the " common form" so soon after
accidents ? Witness : I use it at the most convenient
times. (Laughter.) Mr. Monck: Do you think half an
hour after a man's fractured leg has been set a "convenient
time ?" Witness I consider that he was perfectly sensible
and that it was a convenient time. Cross-examination
continued : He did not examine the fracture. He would
consider it impertinent in him to remove the splints. He
did nut inquire whether the fracture was oblique or transverse.
There was another of the injured parties, named Ashworth,
in the' same house. He could not say what was paid to
him—whether it was £l5 or not. He had no doubt the
" common form" was used in his case also. (Laughter).
He saw Ashworth, and did not consider his life in danger
He could not recollect whether he said a few days would
" set him all to rights," but is positive he did not say that
all he wanted was a little thick gruel. Ashworth die lin
two days after. The night bef ire witness saw him,
Ashworth had drunk "nineteen glasses of brandy." He
was a man of full and intemperate habits.. Witness thought
it prudent to have him removed to his own house, out of
the way of temptation. There was a person of the name
of Bissell Moorehouse, overseer of a factory, also injured.
His face was bruised and his leg cut. The " common
form" was not used in his case. He believes it was settled
after the Salford action. (This was an action brought by
a Jew pedlar, and arose out cf the same accident). He
could not say Viet Moorehouse was paid. He could not
say that it was not £2OO, but was positive that it was not
£3OO. To Mr. Atherton : Is paid by the company solely
for his professional services. Gets nothing for arranging
the compensations. Has no interest in them. Believes
Ashworth's death was accelerated by his intemperance.
Mr. Smithells examined : Is general manager of the East
Lancashire Company. Saw the plaintiff with Dr. Harrison.
Belived him to be quite sensible when he made the agree-
ment. After making his mark he asked witness whether,
supposing after his recovery be could not attend his usual
work, the company would give him employment. Witness
gave him no promise. The compensation given to Ashworth
was £l5, but could not say what was given to Mr. Moore-
house Mr. Shaw, superintendent of the company, was
examined and depsscd, that he was present at the trial at
S&ford. After the trial, plaintiff followed Mr. Smithells
and said that he had not given his evidence of his own
accord, and that the company had dealt improperly by him.
Mr. Atherton then addressed the jury on the evidence
which had been adduced for the defence, and dwelt on the
fact sworn to by Dr. Harrison, that he had no interest
whatever in those agreements; Mr. Monck replied on the
whole case. He commented on the time chosen to make
those agreements, when the nerves of the party injured
were completely shaken, his whole system prostrate,
and the mind barely in a state of consciousness. He
asked if that was the moment to produce a "cut
and dry " agreement—the " common form"— (laughter)
as it was termed, and press it on a person suffering ex-
treme pain, averse to business, and ready to assent to
anything which could bring him momentary relief. He
dwelt on the fact that while Dr. Harrison was employed
professionally to attend the parties injured by such
• accidents, in this case it did not stem that he had done
any act to alleviate their pain, or promote their reso-
very. He did not prescribe a p'll or tie a bandage, but
busied himself going from house to house with the use
of the " common form." (Laughter.) His Lordship, in
summing up, said the railway companies should not be
censured for promptly settling with those who were in.
j'ered by such unfortunate accidents, resulting out of
the negligence of their servants. It was a commenda-
ble practice, but it should not he used indiscriminately.
He could not, however, help thinking that considering
it was impossible accurately to estimate the conse-
quences of an accident such as that the plaintiff sus-
tained, and considering also that the man lived in the
neighbourhood, and that there was no urgency, he could
not help thirking, under those circumstances, that it
was, to say the least of it, an imprudent thing on the
part of the company to attempt to settle at that moment.
In some respects it was unkind to do so. It might be
that it was well intended, bat, under the circumstances,
it was improper. It was a practice which had better
be abandoned in such cases. The jury found that the
plaintiff was not conscious of the nature of the agree
meet when he signed it ; but there was no intention of
fraud on the pert of Dr. Harrison in getting him to
sign it. The verdict was accordingly for the plaintiff.
Damages, £250, less £4O already paid.
PRFSCOTC t'. CROSS AND OMERS.—This was an action to
recover damages for an assault, through which the plaintiff
lost his eye. The plaintiff, Mr. Wilson Prescott,- is a
sase, aseeere... Jae caw uuyes nun 88118 MI
commission. The defendant, Mr Cross, is a salesman at
Messrs. Siddell and Co.'s silk manufactory, at Manchester ;
the second defendant, Fearns, is the keeper of the " Mid-
way Inn," between Manchester and Stockport ; and the
third defendant, Pickett, is a person in the employ of
Messrs. Makin, silk manufacturers, in the neighbourhood.
In August, 1856, the plaintiff offered a quantity of silk,
which was purchased at a government sale, for disposal to
Messrs. Siddell and Co From some reason Messrs.
Siddell and Co. thought that the silk had not been honestly
come by, and they sent for an officer, and insisted upon
the plaintiff explaining ho.v he became possessed of it.
T, e matter was eatisfsce;irity explained, and on the evening
of the same day, the plaintiff and a friend, named Hayes,
went to Bellevue Gardens. On returning about half-past
twelve o'clock at night, they called at the " Midway
Inn," and in the room in which they took their
seats Fearns and the other defendants were.
The question of the silk was introduced by Crosse and the
plaintiff c lied Messrs. Siddell and his son d— rogues.
This led to a dispute, and eventually, when the plaintiff'
rose to leave, Fearns suddenly put out the gas, and then
the three defendants assaulted him and his friend. The
plaintiff was knocked down, and received a kick in the
right eye. The lens oozed out, and the eye has become,
for all practical purposes, sightless. Mr. Overend, Q.O ,
with Mr. Saunders, appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Atherton, Q.C., with Mr. dvens: for Cross ; Mr. M neck,
Q.C., for Fearns ; and Mr. Millward for Pickett. For the
defence it was alleged that it was the plaintiff himself who
provoked the "row," and that the injury to his eye was
the result of an aceadental blow or a fall. The case had
not concluded on the rising of the court, which stands
adjourned to nine o'clock this day (Thursday)