The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-15 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 15, 1849.

Pric€

Price

217
1414
28
2%
42
41 10s.
13%
13%
aye
2%

11198,

trice,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEIVS BENCH, Feb. 14.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice DEN-
MAN and a Special Jury.)
TUCKER V. CHAPLIN AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. H. Hill appeared for the
plaintiff, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Willes for the
defendant.

The plaintiff in this action was Sophia Tucker, the
widow and administratrix of George Tucker, deceased,
and the defendants were Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, the
well-known carders. The action was brought under
Lord Campbell's Act (9th and 10th Victoria, c. 93), to
recover compensation in damages for an injury sustained
by the deceased, in consequence of the defendants neg-
lecting to supply and use proper and suitable hooks and
tickle connected with a crane upon their wharf, in
Thames-street. It appeared by the evidence given by the
plaintiff's witnesses, that the deceased had been for seve-
ral years in the employ of Mr. Hurson, of No. 120, Great
Portland-street, Oxford street, and on the 21st of March,
1648, he was sent with several crates of earthenware
to Hambro'-wharf, Thames-street, in order that the
goods might be thence conveyed by the defendants to the
station of the Brighton Railway. On arriving at the
defendant's wharf, the deceased took his cart near to
the crane, in order to have the crates removed into the
defendants' waggon. One of the defendants' servants
attached one, and the deceased the other hook of the
chain to the crate. The machine was then set in mo-
tion, and as soon as the crate rose above the cart, it
swung round several times, in consequence, as one of the
witnesses said, of the chain being twisted. The de-
fendants servant, seeing the deceased under the crate,
called out to him twice to stand frem under, but this
warning not being heeded, the crate in swinging round,
slipped from one of the hooks, and falling upon the de-
ceased, crushed his foot. The deceased was then taken
to the Middlesex Hospital, where it was thought neces-
sary to amputate the foot. This was done, but the
unfortunate man died a few days afterwards of delirium
tremens, brought on by the injuries which he had
sustained, and the operation which those inju-
ries rendered necessary. The plaintiff called one
of the defendants' servants, and also another who
had formerly been in their employ, and they stated that
hundreds of thousands of loads, including crates, had
been raised by the hooks and chain in question, without
any accident occurring. On the other hand, the other
witnesses said that the hooks were unsafe, as they were
not curved enough to take a sufficient gripe of the crate,
the bars of which were round, though they might be
quite safe for raising casks or timber.
Sir F. TMESIGER addressed the jury for the defend-
ants, and said they would not be liable if the jury believed
the evidence, that the deceased by his own negligence
contributed to the accident. The Learned Counsel con-
tended that as the hooks in question had been used so
long in raising all kinds of goods, and had been continued
by the defendants up to the present time without any
accident occurring, except that now under investigation,
it could not be supposed that the hooks were unsafe for
the purpose for which they had been used.
Lord DENMAN having summed up the evidence,
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 1001.
damages, in consequence, as they alleged, of the ineffi-
ciency of the tackle.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged to state that this
course had at all times been the practice with all coro-
ners throughout England. A person came forward and
made a statement without any Question being put to him;
he stated as much as he liked, when it was a statement
made not on oath; but where a party was made a wit-
ness, then he was sworn, and what he stated was on oath,
and he was then bound to answer every question which
might be put to him. In the one case it was a statement
made by a man who said just as much as he pleased, and
niure; in the other, where he was sworn he was
corn felled, if the questions were put to him, to answer
and state everything.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said, that before a rnagis•
trate, fur instance, the accused party was permitted to
say what be might think necessary in his own defence.
Before a coroner, however, there was no charge—it was
a court of inquiry to obtain evidence with the view of
ascertaining- a certain fact or facts. A person, therefore,
who felt that he could snake a valuable communication,
or throw any light upon the matter of inquiry, ought to
be permitted to give his evidence on oath, and no feeling
of tenderness towards any individual should be allowed
to interfere.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that it had always
been the opinion of all the coroners in England that the
practice they had adopted in this respect was correct.
But, for himself, he had no hesitation, however, in sav-
ing that the practice was wrong—it was not right.
The Loan CHIEF BARON—This might be done by
the coroner in such a case—he might caution the person
if he thought what he was stating was of a character
which would be likely to criminate him. But if a coroner
permitted any person to make any statement before him,
it must be upon oath. The practice which it seemed
had been adopted by the coroners in this respect was
decidedly wrong, and he hoped would not be acted upon
in future.

Dr. Warren, in examination, here said that the co-
roner in this instance had refused to hear him upon
oath, because his statement might tend to criminate him-
self. He intimated to the coroner that he would give
him all the information he could in reference to the matter.

Mr. Horatio Day, the medical gentleman who had
made the first post-mortem examination by order of the
jury, and also assisted Mr. Wilson, said, his opinion as
to the cause of death was at variance with the opinion
of the last-named gentleman.
Other witnesses having been examined,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied.
The LORD CHIEF BARON then summed up.
The jury retired at five minutes past six o'clock, and
on their return into court at half-past six delivered a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 3501.
The announcement of the verdict was followed by
clapping of bands.