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

1.; ' FEBRUARY 15, 1840.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEIV'S 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 Dlr. H. Hill appeared for the
plaintiff, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. %Vales for the
defendant.

The plaintiff in this action was Sophia Tucker, the
widow and administratrix of Georgo Tucker, deceased,
and the defendants were Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, the
well-known carriers. The action was brought under
Lord Campbell's Act (ash 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
tsckle connected wish 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,
1848, he was sent a ith 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
itnesses said, of the chain being twisted. The de-
fendants' servant, seeing the deceased under the crate,
called out to him twice to stand from 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. TUEsIGER 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-
ci( ncy of the tackle.
BROWN V. LORD ALBERT CONYNGHAM.
Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Corrie appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Bramwell for
the defendant.

The defendant in this action (Lord Albert Conyng-
ham) had been the chairman of the managing committee
of the Ennis and Galway Grand Junction Railway Com-
pany, and the action was brought to recover the sum
of 3701. for taking the traffic on a portion of the pro-
posed line.

A person named Fynn, who said he was called to the
Irish bar in the year 1835, was produced as a witness by
the plaintiff, and swore that the defendant had joined
the company in October, 1845, and, having paid the de
posits upon his shares, acted as chairman about that
period. On cross-examination, the witness said ho was
the registered promoter of the line, and had acted as se-
cretary. He also stated, that some years since he had
been appointed Chief Justice of Tobago, but had not gone
out to assume the duties of his office. He (the witness)
had sent over to Ireland the deed in which were
entered the names of many parsons as having paid
up their subscriptions who had not in fact
done so, and among the rest were his own name and that
of his wife. The witness also said he had issued a pro-
sputus, with the names of several persons as having
paid their subscriptions who had not done so. He had
been in prison in Paris, but was released along with 250
other persons on the day after Louis Philippe was
obliged to fly from his capital. He had not been offered
a sum of money as an inducement to give such evidence
s would fix the defendant with liability in the present
action, nor had a promise of more money been made if
the plaintiff should obtain a verdict.

Zletter was then put in and read, which purported to
come from the office of the plaintiff's attorney, ad•
dressed to the witness, and his handwriting upon it
showed that he had received it, containing an offer to the
witness of 201. to come over and give evidence for the
plaintiff, with a promise of more money if the plaintiff
should obtain a verdict.

Lord DENMAN expressed his condemnation of this
letter in very strong language.
bir F. TIIESIGER said he hoped to prove the plaintiff 'a
case by other evidence than that of this witness.
The witness said, the money was merely to enable
him to come from France, and that he did not under-
stand it es an offer of money to give evidence of any
particular sort. The money was not sent, and ho was
afterwards arrested in Paris, but on his return to this
country he was subpenaed. He had offered to go out of
the country if a sum of money were given him, and if
he had done se, the plaintiff could not have proved the
defendant's liability.
The plaintiff then called several other witnesses in
support of his case.

Air. Sergeant SICEE, in addressing the jury for the
defendant, said that the evidence of the principal witness
vras not to be believed, and the plaintiff's case had there-
!'ore entirely failed.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up the evidence to the
jury, again censured very strongly the writing of such a
letter as that which had been read, and said that every
witness ought to come into the witliess-box free from
every influence of fear, favour, or affection, and prepared
to speak the truth, and that only.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 14.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, after Hilary Term,
before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
WARLEY, 151. P., a'. HEALEY AND COOKE.
This case for a third time came before the jury this
morning, and, as on the two previous days, the court
was again crowded almost to suffocation.
After the examination of a reporter of the name of
Potter, who proved that the report of the proceedings of
the inquest was a correct one, a mass of documentary
evidence was read. In this evidence were contained the
statements of Dr. Hall and Dr. Reid, both of whom are
abroad, the latter at the Mauritius. Both of these gen-
tlemen gave it as their deliberate opinion, having made
the first post-mortem examination of the body, that the
death had been caused, without any reference at all to
the punishment of flogging, solely by the inflammation
of the heart and pleura. Dr. Reid's statement also ex-
pressed an opinion that he had been very coarsely,
rudely, and unfairly treated by the Coroner when he had
been present at the inquest.
Dr. Warren was then called, and underwent a very
long examination. In the course of his statement he
complained that the Coroner bad not examined him. He
had been 33 years in the service, and for many years in
the 7th Hussars. Ho had seen as many as 200 men
flogged in his time, and the flogging of White had been
conducted in the usual manner, and he did not during
its progress remark anrindication by the condition of
the man that he was unable to bear or suffer the punish-
ment. The man was taken to the hospital after the
flogging was over, and there he had attended him. The
witness went on to state the progress of the healing of
the back, and then said that on a particular day he had
reported that the man would be fit for duty. On that
day, however, he complained of a pain about the left
side; for this he treated him, but the illness became
worse, and at length the man died. It was not until
after the death that he had heard of the man's visit to
the dead-house. That is a very damp cold place, and, in
his opinion, the pain of which the man had com-
plained, and the subsequent inflammation which had re-
sulted in his death, had been caused by the sudden check
which his system must have received by going into that
room. He had heard the opinions which had been given
by Mr. Erasmus Wilson as to the cause of the man's
death, but from those opinions he entirely dissented.
He did not agree with that gentleman. He was not
aware of any orders having been given to the deceased
man to go to the dead-house. This was about three
weeks after the punishment had been inflicted, and the
man was then considered to be perfectly well. There
were many backs which healed more rapidly than others.
This man's back healed very kindly. His death fol-
lowed the complaint in about five or six days. When
he found the man was getting worse he wrote to Sir J.
M'Gregor for further advice, and the result was the at
tendance of Dr. Hall and Dr. Reid. The witness again
complained that he had not been allowed to give any
statement on oath at the inquest, and added that the
Coroner had declined to take his examination on oath, as
he said it might turn out that he had been himself mi..
urinated in the transaction, but he did permit him to
make a statement not on oath.

The LORD CHIEF BARO-Nlhen remarked that it ap-
peared to be the practice of coroners to adopt that
course of proceeding. Now, he was of opinion, and he
believed he might add that the rest of the Court were of
the same opinion, that there ought to be no such prac-
tice in the case of any person who might come before a
coroner and offer to make a statement. Tho coroner
t
should hear the statement on oath, and if it turnedon
the
out
not to be relevant he should then reject it, whilst,
other hand, if it proved to be important as applicable to
the subject of the inquiry, then in that case the state-
mentt
would be, in common with the other testimony,
placed under the consideration of the jury. n the
coroner
statement which
coroner had no right to receihvee any
was not given. on oath ;
would be just as much evidence party
°l.lf
to criminate
making it as though the statement had been made on
oath, because it might be used on the trial evidence
against evid
against the individual.

[PRICE SD.

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 be stated was on oath,
and be 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, ar..d
no more; wbiht, in the other, where he was sworn he was
compelled, if the questions wero put to him, to answer
and state everything.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said, that before a magis-
trate, for instance, the accused party was permitted to
say vi but he might think necessary in his own defence.
Before a coroner, however, there was no charge—it was
a court of inquiry to obtain evidence wi.h the view of
ascertaining a certain fact or facts. A person, therefore,
who felt that he could make a valuable communication,
or throw any light upon the matter of inquiry, wight 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, i❑ say-
ing that the practice was wrong—it was not right.
The LORD 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 bo 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 fire 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 hands.
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.
James Jennings and James Jarman wera brcught
before the Lord Mayor.
Policeman 419 stated, that at half-past one o'clock on
Tuesday, he heard in Bread-street a woman scrEam out,
and found upon inquiry that a girl had just been car-
ried into Mr. Brown's warehouse with her leg broken.
He was informed that a bale of goods had been thrown
off a waggon upon her, and soon afterwards Fhe was
carried to Guy's Hospital, when the surgeon found that
her leg had been broken, and gave witness a certificate
to that effect.

The warehouseman of Mr. Brown, of 29, Bread-
street, stated that the defendants had been delivering
come goods from a waggon, and Jarman said to Jen-
nings, " All right," and Jennings, who was at the wag-
gon, threw a bale of ,stuff muslins on to the pavement.
The girl was passing on quickly at the time, and in a
stooping position, and the bale, it was believed, caught
her leg as she passed. Jarman called out, and held out
his arm to keep back a person who was passing at the
time, and the girl, probably, got under his arm, and was
thus subjected to the dangerous accident.
Jarman said, the whole account given of the business
was correct. He was pushing back a man, and the
little girl passed under his arm and was struck with the
bale.

The LORD MAYOR said, he had frequently observed
that very little caution was used by persons employed to
unload goods. He had not, however, discovered that
there was any culpable negligence attributable to the
defendants, whom he would, therefore, allow to put in
bail to the amount of 201. each, to secure their attend-
ance in a week.