The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-03 00:00:00

CAUSE-LIST

Mordaunt

Walker and H '
Thornley and J

:

Holden and San

Stone

Shattock-:,:

Lowndes and Co
H Forshaw„;

Littledale and B
ittledale and B

SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.
BEFORE MR.. BARON MARTIN.
NISI PRIU3 CASES.
Mr. Baron Martin took his seat at nine o'clock, and
proceeded to try civil cases before a common jury.
WRIGHT V. BANKES.—Mr Unthank appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton and Mr. Baylis for the de-
fendant. It was an action to recover the sum of £569 17s 4d'
for work and labour done in sinking a mine at Winstanley,
in this county. The plaintiff was William Wright, a
working man, of Lamberhead Green, and the defendant,
Meyrick Banks, Esq., a large coal owner, near Wigan.
The defendant pleaded that he was not, indebted, but
he bad paid what was due, and that he had a set off. The
whole question turned upon the terms on which the
defendant put down an engine to pump the mine, as it was
sunk. A verdict for the plaintiff was taken by consent for
£112.7
FALSE. IMPRISONMENT.—HARTLEY V. GREENWOOD.—
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Thomas Hartley,
against one Gibson Greenwood. The facts were that the
plaintiff was a small manufacturer at Acton, in this county,
and a weaver of cloth,, in commission for the defendant.
The latter. had sent warps to be wove to the plaintiff,
and the defendant, supposing that the plaintiff had
purloined some of the warps, gave him into the charge
of the police. Mr. Atherton and Mr. Reid appeared
for he plaintiff, and Mr. James and Mr. Monk for the
defence. The plaintiff, it appeared, was taken before the
magistrates on this charge, when the case was dismissed. The
defendant admitted that his own attorney had advised hint to
make up the matter with the plaintiff, which was declined, £5
being offered the plaintiff as compensation. Mr, James
addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, ahowing that
the case, as opened for the plaintiff by his learned friend, had
no foundation in truth, as would be shown by evidence which
he would bring before them. That whatever injury had been
inflicted upon the plaintiff, had been ao inflicted from the over-
officiousness of the policeman ; that there never had been any
imputation upon the character of the plaintiff, and that the
whole had originated in a mistake. After a partial examination
of one witness, the learned judge said that the case had been
roved, and the jnry would find a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages £.5.
ACCIDENT AT BIRKENHEAD FERRY—BIANE v. WIL-
LOUGHBY.—Mr. James and Mr. Brett appeared for the
plaintiff, Mr. Atherton and Mr. Millward were for the de-
fendants. The plaintiff in this case, John Blanc, is an
engineer, and the action was for damage done to his
wife, Alice Blanc, on the evening of the 10th January
lace, at Birkenhead. The defendants are the lessees of
the Birkenhead Ferry. In consequence of the neglect of
the defendants to provide suitable and proper protection
for the safety of the passengers crossing by their ferry,
during alterations which were being made at their usual
pay gate, the plaintiff's wife fell into the shore below, a
depth of 18 or 20 feet, and sustained very serious injury.
She had been in hospital for 16 days, and was still
under medical care, and unable to r ursue her business
as a milliner. It was alleged, on behalf of the plaintiff,
that it was the bounden duty of the defendants to
provide protection at that point of the ferry where the
accident occurred, and more especially since the traffic
way leading close by the edge at the upper end of the
pier was only a temporary way during alterations which
the defendants were then making at their pay gate. The
defendants had a, light in the window of a shed
temporarily used by them as a pay gate, which it was
alleged tended to dazzle the eyes of the passengers,
and thereby preventing their observing any dangers
which might threaten. The health of the plaintiff's
wife had been so impaired that scarce any amount of
damages could compensate for the injuries done.
Mrs. Blanc, the wife of the plaintiff, Mr. John Blanc,
was called by Mr. Brett. Her husband is a civil engineer,
residing at Tranmere. In January last, when the accident
happened, the witness, who had a family, was carrying on
business as a dressmaker. On. Saturday, the 10th of
January, site had been in Liverpool, and at a quarter to
five o'clock crossed to Birkenhead by the defendant's boat.
Oa arriving at Birkenhead, she paid her fare at the
pay gate : it was low water at the time. Near the pay gate
there was a place which was unguarded, that went to the
shore : it was on the right hand side going from the boat :
it was quite dark. There was a shed, on the left hand
side for coals and luggage : in this shed there was a light
which shone through the window. Was inside the
chain, making for the light : there were chains and posts
running along the side of the river. Witness
got between the chains and the river, and by feeling the chain,
she found that she had made a mistake. When she felt the
chain she would have gone back had there been room, but she
turned her head, and fell from the chain to the shore, a
distance of 30 feet, by which site was nearly killed Was
quite insensible after the fall, and did not recollect what had
happened until she found herself in the hospital. She then
discovered that she had sustained a concussion of the brain and
other serious injuries. Was in the hospital more than a
fortnight. Had suffered a great deal, since leaving the
hospital, from her head, eyesight, and limbs. Had not been en-
abled to attend to business since. Cross examined by Mr. Ather-
ton : Was supporting a portion of her family by dressmaking.
She had six children, and her husband had been out of
employment the last six years. Her husband had been livin4
in Manchester, and site principally supported her family. Had
been over to Liverpool to take a parcel to the railway. Had
not (ailed upon any of her friends. The only refreshment
she had in Livtrpo3l was half a glass of rum, which she got iu a
vaults in Dale creet. Drank the rum neat, and was not mtrh
in the habit of drinking drams. Her eye sight was not very
good before the accident. Ten years' ago the witness had a
fall at Rock Ferry and injured herself. It was dat4c,
between nine and ten o'clock, when this accident
occurred ,at Rock Ferry. She fell from a plank on that
or casion and was plunged into the water. Had not attended to
any business since the accident at Birkenhead, and never
expects again to be able to attend to any business. The
shed alluded to had been erected some time. Thc,
Birkenhead boats, at the time witness crossed, were
generally well filled. On the day after the accident, saw
Dr. Baylis, one of the hospital surgeons, who contieued
to attend her for the fortnight, until she left the hospital.
Remembers Dr. Baylis, Dr. Marshall, and the matron
the day after the accident, but does not remember Dr.
Baylis asking the matron how the accident happened,
and does not recollect the matron saying that she was
drunk when brought into the hospital. Her daughter
might le.ve staid that she was not in liquor, but that she
had fall n over from the effects of near sightedness. By
Mr. Jame, : The glass of rum she had was at about half.
past four o'clock in the afternoon, and did not affect her
head in the le ist. Elizabeth Lang, the wife of William
Lang, a book-keeper at Birkenhead, examined : On the
day in question had been to Liverpool, and returned in
the same boat with Mrs. Blanc, and walked up the slip
with her. Mrs. Blanc was perfectly sober. Observed a
bright light in the shed window. Mrs. Blade was within
two yards of witness, when she heard her cry " oh,"

NISI PRIUS COURT.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CROMPTON.
BUCRIIAM 7. THE ANCHOR INSURANCE COMPANY.—
This case was opened on Wednesday. It was an action on a
policy of insurance. Mr Attorney General Knowles, Mr
Monk, and Mr Apland appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Hugh
Hill, Q.C, and Mr Jones, appeared for the defendants. The
facts of the case were that Mr George Buckham, the plaintiff,
claimed £5OO on a policy of insurance effected in the office of
the Anchor Company, upon a quantity of waste yarn and cotton
which ho had stored in his warehouse, Golden street, Rochdale
road, Manchester. The policy contained warrants that there
should be no oily waste or artificial lights. In 1854, the
plaintiff held a warehouse in Back Turner street, and
rooms in different other parts of Mauchester, all of which
were filled with waste cotton. In March, 1855, he took
a large warehouse in Back Turner street. Be gave up
his various store rooms, and filled this place with his
goods. Tile warehouse was so filled with goods that it
broke down. After this occurrence, plaintiff took the
warehouse in Golden street, to which the present action
has reference; and this warehouse he filled with goods
of the same descriKon. At the time of this latter re
moval he was insured in the North of England offices to
the amount of £1,600 upon the stock he had had in Back
Turner street. On his removal that company consentei t)
transfr a policy of £BOO from B ick Turner street to the
premises in Golden street. When the annual premium
became payable in Nareh to the North of England offices,
that company refused to eo on with one of the insurances,
and the plaintiff accordingly resolved on effecting an
insurance with some other company. Mr. Carr, agent for
the North of En •
gland Company, introduced Mr. Buckham

FIRST LIST.—SALFORD HUNDRED.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys. Plaintiffi. Defendants. Defendants' Attorneys.
3 CP...Same Bel'house and ano (es) v The Mayor SmofM'chester Austin
11 Ex ...Same Blane f(s.i) v The Lane & York Rail Co Lewis, D and Co
13 Q13...J H Dearden Charles (es) v National Guar Ass Society Sale and Co
14 Q 8... Worthington & E Duncan v Harding and ano North
16 CP...W K Taylor Lawton (es) v:Whitaker H Forshaw
17 Ex ...Sale and Co Fanshaw (ss) v Peet P 0 Milne and Son
SECOND LIST.—WEST DERBY HUNDRED,
1 QB...Bennett and ' Wilkinson (es) v Teall
2Ex ..,Rowe ‘- Waring Junr v Everth
3 Ex Lewis and Co Smith (es) v Long
4 Ex ...Same Price (ss) v Dillon and ors
5 Ex ...Avison ard R Martin (ss) v Frangopulo and ano
6 Ex ...Hodgson Allen v Gibson
..
7 CP...Barnett and NI Stubbs (ss) v Baker
11 CP...Yates Jun French and ors [ v McHenry
14 CP...Bolton Baker (ss) v Stubbs
15 QB...Lowndes and lA. Mavrogordato :. (es) v Hindson
16 Ex ...Pye and Co Burgoyne sr Jackson
18 Ex ...J and H Gregory Stewart (ss) v Wright and ano Atkinsons and uo 21 Ex ...Same Same (sJ) v Smith and ano Same
23 CP...Yates Jun Jones admor &c (ss) v Provincial Insurance Co Edgworth and P
24 QB...Lowndes and Co Ely :(ss) v Bell Harvey and Co
25 CP...Dodge Harrison and anr (ss) v Lee - Yates Jun
26 QB...Kirkbank Shillingford (ss) v Chester & Holyhead R. Co Swift and Co 27 CPL.Johnson Hignett - v Blundell H Forshaw
28 QB...Lowndes and Co Brennand (sJ) v Ker and ors J 0 Watson
30 Ex ...rletcher and H Grainger and ors (es) v Kirkpatrick ' 7 Lowndes and Co
31 CP...Grimmer Swinnerton (ss) v Lon & Nor Western R. Co Swift and Co '
32 CP...Roscoe Allan (es) v Waiters Mewburn and Co''
35 Ex ...H Forshaw Baines (es) v Royal Ex. Assurance Co Freshfield 39 Ex ...Neal and M ' Ford and anr v Hannay ZA 40 Ex ...Lace and Co Neilson v Andersson J
and,W Clare
41 Ex ...Duncan and Ca Miller and anr ' (ss) v Fletcher and anr
42 CPL.Roby Houghton and ux admix &c v Hignett and anr
46 CP...Rawson and Co Bottomley (es) v Nuttall
47 Ex ...II Forshaw . Cotesworth and ors (sJ) v Wood and ors
48 CPL.Johnson Parkinson v Jackson
53 QB...llassal 7 Penny and ano exors . v Pollard and ors
54 QB...Wills and S ' ' Fraser v Jordan
55 QB...Shattock Deane v Littledale and ors
58 CPL.Deace 1 Preston and ors v Tamplin and:ano 4
61 QB...Swift &Co The March. of Londonderry r(ss) v The Sunderland Dock Co
62 CPL.Backhouse Dean v Wright
63 CPL.Same L/E-1,,- Dean and ors v Wright
64 Ex ...Haigh and T Bredin (ss) v Eatough Turner and Son
66 CPL.T and R Radcliffe Aspden ' _ v Fielding and an) -1/4
Pickup
67 Ex ..North and Co Whitley and ano (Fs) v Parr and ano 7: '5; i
68 QB ..Lowndes and Co Johnson and ano (s.r) v Croft ussell 69 QB...Shattock Tapson v Swift Blackhurst '7O Ex ...Pemberton Blundell v Gossage J Ansdell .72 CPL.Same 'r W Hartley v Same Same '
..
73 Ex ...Kaye :7: Goddefroy and ors (ss) v Hegan J B Lloyd • 76 CPI-H Forshaw =' Whitaker 4 ;',:',.. v Lawton . '-', W K Taylor
77 QB...Lowndes and:Co Parry and ano --: v Trustees Birkenhead,Dock Biroham and Co
78 QB...Same Crosby and ors '' (es) v Wilcox and ano H Forshaw '

and then fall on to the shore. Since the accident, the
defendants have put up posts and extra chains. This
was done a few days after the accident. William Lang,
the husband of the last witness, deposed to the defendants
having put up the extra chains a week after the accident.
Mr. Atherton, in addressing the jury for the defence, con-
tended that there had been no proof of negligence on the part
of the trustees of the Ferry adduced. Had it been so, it was
no part of his case to plead for a mitigation of damages.
The evidence of Mrs. Blanc herself tended to show that it
was either want of caution, or the deficiency of eyesight, through
which the accident occurred ; and this, he thought, would b-
the impression upon the minds of the jury. ledid not want
to state that Mrs. Blanc was intoxicated at the time of the
accident, as he believed she was sober, but ho was justified iu
putting the questions he had on that subject, front the remarks
that were made in the hospital. These remarks were com-
municated to the defendants, and it was his duty to elicit the
truth. The defendants, as well as others, sympathised with
Mrs. Blane, and, as the case stood, were willing to
give moderate damages, although the injuries she
received were purely the result of an accident.
He then called for the defence Dr. Baylis, one of the honorary
surgeons to the Birkenhead Hospital, who said when he first
saw Mrs. Blane, after the accident, she was suffering front
symptoms of concussion of the brain, Mrs. Blane appearing
then to be in a very bad state of health ; but ho cannot
satisfy himself that her present illness is caused by the injuries
then received. When he enquired how the accident happened,
it was one of the nurses who volunteered the observation that
she was drunk. His impression was that she was not intoxi
cated. By Mr. James : Examined into the state of Mrs.
Blane's health yesterday, and from the conversation he had
with her, he did not consider that her general health was suffer-
ing from the accident ; but she complained to him that it
was through the accident she continued unwell. When
she left th o hospital, theme was an apparent
difference between the pupil of one of her eyes, for which I
could not account, but I apprehended no very serious injury
would result from the accident. 'William Scott, a civil
engineer, residing in Tranmere, deposed that the Birken-
head slip was of the ordinary construction of such wayfares.
He thinks there was sufficient provision at the time of the
accident for the safety of the passengers. Cross examined
by Mr. James : There are rails used on the margin of the
docks, and on some of the piers. Remembers there were
rails used in the old landing stage. Clark Rampling,
surveyor and architect, is acquainted with the construction
of the ferry, and understands plans. Believes there was
sufficient protection. Had been in the habit of crossing by
the same ferry.* twenty seven years. Stevens, surveyor,
examined : Sifews the slips upon the ricer. Was of opinion
that there was sufficient protection, and that the plaintiff
was negligent on the night in question, for there was
sufficient room for any one to pass at the
point of the slip indicated by the plaintiff ;
there was sufficient light. Dr. Marshall, house surgeon at
Birkenhead flospital. Remembers Mrs. Blanc being brought
there, Saw her two or three times each day while in the hospital.
She suffered from concussion of the brain when brought in.
When she left, there was nothing to indicate confirmed ill
health. So far as he could judge, her brain is not diseased.
He examined her on Saturday last. Ho did not think she
was now suffering from any injuries she had received from the
accident. Cross examined by Mr. James : A person could
not fall from such a height without suffering. Did not think
she suffered a worse state of health than persons geueraliy of
her age suffer. Received his appointment from the committee
of the hospital. Mr. Willoughby is one of the committee.
Mr. Atherton having addressed the jury upon the evidence,
Mr. James replied, that the part of the defence that
the plaintiff was under the influence of drink, at
the time of the accident, had completely failed
and the jury had seen that the accusation had no founda-
tion. He agreed with his learned friend that the
defendants were bound to provide only "reasonably safe
accommodation," and it had been shown from one of
their own m itnesses that at the Woodside Ferry rails
are provided. It was urged again that the plaintiff had
defective vision arising from her age, whereby this
accident had happened, but-it is against all such persons
meeting with accidents that protection is enforced and
made. An additional post was afterwards placed at the
upper right angle of the slip, connected with the rail
running parallel with the river by a chain ; and solely,
unquestionably, because their attention had been called
to the unsafe state of that part of the slip, and they
sought to prevent in future any such accident
occurring. With respect to the conduct and evidence of
Dr. Marshall, he would leave it with the jury, simply
stating that hi 3 conduct had been anything but fair to his
client. He had been subpmaaed for the plaintiff, and was
waited upon for that purpose on Monday last, and he did
not honestly inform the person who waited upon him that
he had been subpceaaed for the defence. What his motive
was it was not for him to say. The circumstances of the
case called for damages, since it was beyond all question
that the negligence of the defendants had caused very
serious and melancholy injuries to the plaintiff, upon whose
hard earnings her family depended for subaistance, her
husband, from ill health, having been unable to follow his
employment for three or four years. as lordship then
addressed the jury upon the evidence. The question of
damages would be considered by them, which should be
reasonable compensation for the injuries to the plaintiff and
her family. The jury retired at five o'clock to consider
their verdict.