The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-18 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

- -
(Sittings in Banco, at Westminster, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice Wightman,
Mr. Justice Crompton, and Mr. Justice Black-
burn.)
EYM V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.-
FATAL ACCIDENT.-JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.
This was an action brought by the widow of the
late Mr. Pym, a county magistrate, and gentleman
of independent landed property, to recover compen-
sation in damages for the loss which she and eight
of nine of their children sustained by his death,
caused by the negligence of the Great Northern
Railway Company's servants, while tee,was travel-
ling on the company a
The damages were laid at a large amount, in re-
lation to considerations respecting his age, his pro
perty, the youth of his children, and the lose, in
reference to their education, which they must be
supposed to have sustained by his untimely death.
sirs. Pym sued as executrix under his will, on
her own and her children's account, and as co-plaintiff
with the executors appointed under that testamen-
tory instrument.
The damages laid were very heavy, and the trial,
before a special jury, resulted in a verdict for the
plaintiff, with damages £13,000, apportioned thus
—to the widow, £l,OOO, and to the eight children
£1,500 each.
A rule was subsequently moved for calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside, and a new trial had, principally on the
ground that the damages were excessive.
Cause was shown by counsel, representing the
defendants, against the rule, and the Court having
heard the arguments, intimated that they would
take time to consider.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn to-day delivered
the judgment of the Court in the case. The princi-
pal objections, his lordship said, raised by the de-
fendants, to the finding of the jury were, first, that
the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on a point
of law ; and, secondly, that if she was entitled to
recover, the damages awarded by the jury were ex-
cessive. Tno deceased, who had so suddenly come
by his death, was tenant for life in a settled estate
in land, of 14,000 a year. By the provisions of the
marriage settlement between him and the plaintiff,
£l,OOO a year was settled on her, and a further
settlement of £20,000 was provided for the younger
children in the event of his death. To the eldest
son (who was not included in the verdict of
the jury), the estate passed under entail. The
losses which the children had sustained by his death
were ranged, first, under the head of a superior
education and other advantages, including personal
comforts and the social position which they would
have enjoyed had ho not been deprived of life, as
well as what he, as a prudent father, might have
saved for them. It was urged, among other things,
that the case did not come within the meaning of
the statute, and that the pecuniary loss to them,
relied upon, was too uncertain and remote to be the
subject of compensation. The Court, however, was
of opinion that those objections to the plaintiff's
right to recover had failed, and that she and her
children had sustained a pecuniary loss capable of
being estimated in money. The question of, the
amount of that loss was one for the consideration
of the jury, and the limit of liability was for' the
consideration of the Legislature, and not for ate
judge or jury. Looking, however, at the damages
awarded by the jury, and considering all the cir-
cumstances, the Court were of opinion that they
were excessive so far as the children w ere concerned.
The Court, therefore, suggested that the sum of
11,000, awarded by the jury to the widow, be con-
firmed to her, and that thell,soo awarded to each
of the children be reduced to £l,OOO each. The
judgment of the Court further was that,should this
latter part of their objection not be acceded to by
the plaintiff, the rule for a new trial must be made
absolute.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., representing the plaintiff and
children, assented, and the rule for a new trial was
discharged accordingly,

CE.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVOR
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
TRUWHITT V. TP,IIWHITT AND FISII--JUDGMENT.
In tbis case the petitioner, Mr. Charles Tru-
whitt, prayed the Court for a dissolution of mar-
riage, on the ground of his wife's adultery with the
co-respondent, and the respondent. pleaded denial,
cruelty, desertion, and that the petitioner had con-