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.) •
rY)I V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPAKY.-
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 he was travel-
ling on the company's line.
The damages were laid at a largo amount, in re-
lation to considerations respecting his age, his pro.
perty, the youth of his children, and the loss, in
reference to their education, which they must be
supposed to have sustained by his untimely death.
Ars. 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
t 6
each.
widow,
cl £l,OOO, and to the eight children
£1,500
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.

-I;;TCliief 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 thejury were ex-
cessive. The dPreased, who had so suddenly come
by his death, was tenant for life in a settled estate
in land, of £4,000 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 oldest
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
ware 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 he 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 the
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
£l,OOO, awarded by the jury to the widow, be con-
firmed to her, and that the X 1,500 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,

COURT OF PROBATE AND.DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
TRUWHITT V. TRUNVIIITT AND FISII--JUDGMEN,T.
In this case the petitioner, Mr. Charles 1 ru-
whitt, prayed the Vourt 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-

duced tu.her misconduct. At the trial which took
place some days ago, it was proved that the peti-
tioner was a solicitor, but had been obliged to give
up practice in consequence of his wife's intemperate
habits, and that he emigrated to Australia, having
previously made provision for her support. For the
defence, evidence was adduced to show that the
petitioner had been guilty of ill-treatment of his
wife, and the Court took 4me to consider all the
circumstances of the case.
Sir C. Cresswell now delivered judgment. He
said this was a most lamentable case, and there was
no doubt the husband laid himself open to the
charge of cruelty which had been brought against
him by his wife ; hut the respondent, by her intem-
perance and dissolute conduct, placed herself in her
present, position. He must, therefore, pronounce a
decree nisi.