The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-02 00:00:00

DYKES V. STRUTHERS.

The arguments in this appeal were commenced,
but sot having concluded when their Lordships
rose, the further consideration of the case was adjourned
to Monday next.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL, March 1.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-
day in the Council-chamber, Whitehall, for the purpose
of hearing appeals from the Arches' Court. The Lords
present were Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, the Bishop
of London, and the Judge of the Admiralty Court.

CRAIG V. FARNALL.
This appeal from the Arches' Court occupied their
Lordships the whole day.

The Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor of Eng
land, and the Vice-Chancellors Knight Bruce and Wi-
gram were occupied the whole day with motions of no
general interest.

'lra7t"§isPrEnuEs,XorEe EXCHEQUER, EF.Rl'oieLbo.c2KB.and a
(Sittings
Specill Jury, at Guildhall.)

PEARCE V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Barnard were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Martin and Mr. Hogging
appeared for the defendants.
This was an action on the case in which the plaintiff,
who is, or was, the valet of a gentleman of fortune,
claimed compensation at the hands of the Great Western
Railway Company for injuries received by him through
the negligence of their servants. The circumstances out
of which this claim arose must be rendered familiar to
the public, when we premise that the locus in quo was
Shrivenham and the train the express, which, as may be
remembered, came into collision with a cattle-truck at
that station, on the 10th of May las!, as it passed that
station at full speed. It appears that the usual signal was
left standing to denote all right, and as that station was
not one at which the express train stepped, the driver
held out his speed; but it so happened that the truck
had not been removed quite far enough into the siding,
and came into contact with the carriages of the train.
The consequence was that the truck and some of the car-
riages were considerably damaged, and about thirty pas-
sengers strewed amongst the fragments of the train
along the line. Of these four or five were killed on the
spot, and all were materially injured. Among the
latter was the unfortunate plaintiff, who was taken up
insensible, with several wounds on his head. On being
taken to a public •house he recovered his senses under
the torments of an operation, and, on a careful examina-
tion of his person, it was discovered that one of his legs
was broken above the ankle joint, which was dreadfully
crushed, while his right elbow-joint was broken. His
flesh was torn from his limbs in various parts, and one
eye was lost, while the other was damaged so seriously
as to render the preservation of it very problematical in-
deed. In addition to these painful injuries it was ascer-
tained that some splinters had been driven into the lid
of his eye, which it was necessary to open and sew up
again; so that, taking all things into consideration, the
poor man may be stated to have endured as much bodily
anguish and suffering as could well arise from a railway
accident; and though comparatively speaking pronounced
to be recovered, he yet was in perpetual pain, the shock
to his nervous system being one from which, in all pro-
bability, he will never recover.
On the part of the plaintiff it was urged to the jury
that the case was one of extraordinary negligence on
the part of the defendants' servants, both porter and
policeman at the station being to blame in not removing
the truck and giving the signal " all right." Had the
policeman attended to his duty, he would have seen that
the truck was projecting on the main line, and he ought
to have satisfied himself that all was clear before he gave
such a signal to the express train as would warrant the
driver in running through the station at the rate of sixty
miles an hour.

On the part of the defendants it was urged, that
though great negligence had existed, they were not to
be made to pay exorbitantly for that which was after
all attributable to one man alone, the policeman, whom
they had punished by prosecuting and convicting for
manslaughter for this lamentable occurrence, up to
which time he had given great satisfaction to the com-
pany on account of his steady and careful conduct. The
company, therefore, had done all :that could be expected
of them, and, however they might regret the accident
and sufferings of the passengers, it was submitted that
the jury ought not to lay a heavy hand on them, es-
pecially as they had paid all the expenses attendant upon
the illness of the plaintiff, and could hardly be expected
by the utmost possible vigilance to do more than they
had done to avoid accidents such as that which had led
to such lamentable results.
The Omar BARON, after having gone through the
evidence, told the jury,. that as the defendants were
clearly liable in this case for the negligence of their
servants, the only question in the case was the amount
of compensation to which they might think the plaintiff
was entitled.
The jury deliberated for an hour, and gave a verdict
for the plaintiff. Damages 7501.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.