The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, in Michaelmas
Term, before Mr. Martin and Common Juries.)
The second sittings at Nisi Prius for the present term
for London commenced yesterday morning. The list of
causes was very large.
SKIPP V THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Crowder (with Mr. Burgess) repre-
sented the defendants.
This was an action to recover compensation in dama-
ges for an injury alleged to have been sustained by the
plaintiff through the negligence of the defendants.
Mr. James said that the question in this case was of
the utmost importance, and had upon several occasions
been the subject of discussion at Westminster. The
The question was this, whether a railway
company was
liable for an accident which might befal any
one of their
servants when in the performance of their duty to the
company. With regard to the present case, it would
appear that the plaintiff, at the time of the accident,
was in the service of the Eastern Counties Railwayg,iardto
Company, and was acting in the capacity of
what was termed a goods or luggage train. The par-
ticular train left London at a quarter before nine o'clock
on the morning of the Ist of July, 1852, and everything
had gone on satisfactorily until the train reached the
Lea-bridge station. Upon its arrival at that place, the
plaintiff found that there were 42 trucks on a siding
which were to be linked on to the train and taken on to
Norwich. It so happened that there was not only no
porter nor any other man who could assist the guard
in shifting and linking on these trucks to the main
train at that station, and, therefore, in his anxiety
to link them on, so as to get away from the place
before the arrival • of the passenger train, and
thus prevent either a collision or the stoppage of that
train, the plaintiff had been thrown under the wheel of
the engine and his arm severed from his body. This
was the injury for which the plaintiff claimed compen-
sation. The learned counsel then proceeded to refer to
the law having reference to this subject, and urged that
this case varied in its circumstances from the case of a
domestic servant, and submitted that a railway com-
pany, having servants to undertake the perilous duty of
guards, were bound to provide them a sufficient staff and
adequate assistance, to preserve them as well as the
public from accidents, from those serious or fatal
accidents which could not but happen where there was
an inefficient discharge of duty on the part of the com-
pany or of their servants.
The plaintiff and another witness named Staines were
then examined, and corroborated the statement of the
learned counsel.
Mr. Baron Martin asked Mr. James if that was his
case l

Mr. James Lima replied in the affirmative
Mr. Boron Martin was of opinion then that there was
no casgo to th
not responsible
or •a
The railway company was
accident which might befall
their servants.
employment, o •a servant was dissatisfied with his
r he found found it attended with so much
danger as to renderetent fearfulinb: of the consequences, it
was perfectly comp
to quit the employment.
The company did not compelml him to remain in their
service, but the man remaine odf his own accord, even
though he was aware that the
Hiii,st soe had to perform
was of a dangerous character.
, anhdad the power to
service was clearly his own act.
then this un-
irremaining in the
quit, but he did not choose to dos
fortunate accident occurred ; and for the
ncnonsequences of that accident in his opinion the railway
not responsible. He should, therefore, direct the wa:
to find a verdict for the defendants, there beingnr",„
evidence to go to them in proof of their liability. —
Mr. James said he would rather consent to a nog.
suit, as he proposed to bring the question before the
full Court.
A nonsuit was then entered.

ARCHES' COURT.
(Before Sir J. Dodson.)
MONEY V. MONEY.
This was a milt, instituted by the husband against the
wife, for the restitution of conjugal rites.
The cue bad not concluded at the rising of the Court,