The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-08 00:00:00

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a commis-
sion merchant, of Liverpooi, to recover compensation in
damages for injuries sustained at the accident which
occurred at the Dee-bridge, Chester, on the 24th of
May, 1847, which was alleged to have happened in con-
sequence of the negligence of the defendants, in not
making and maintaining of sufficient strength a certain
bridge across the I)ee. The damages were laid at
2,000/.

Mr. EVANS (with whom was Mr. Welsby) stated the
case. He appeared as counsel for Mr. Grote, a merchant
carrying on business in Liverpool, in conjunction with
Mr. Tomkinson, who sought compensation for injuries
received, by being thrown from the Chester Dee Bridge
in one of the railway carriages, on the occasion of the
dreadful accident of the 24th of May. He must confess
his surprise that the company defended the action, and
atterepts d in every possible manner to lessen the com-
pensation to which Mr. Grote was entitled. They had
not paid a shilling into court—they bad reused ail
propcsitions for eustitable arbitration, and were deter-
mined to come before a jury—a jury which he hoped
would give such dainagee against tht to as heir
coi duct throughout the affair deserved. He ga-
thered from the conversation which had taken
place last night, what was to he the nature
ut the defence to be set up, and upon w hick the
jury were to give small damages. His Learned Friend's
eloquence might be great, but if opposed to common
sense, would have little OS-et with twelve intelligent inen.
It was said last night that his client had only received
" a pinch," and he supposed that was the defence which
his Learned Friend was instructed to set up. The
Learned Gentleman then described the mechanical con-
struction of the bridge, which was unsafe at the time;
and with which the company were clearly not now sa-
tisfied from the continuous and bungling attempt they
were making to remedy it. The Learned Gentleman
then briefly narrated the accident, and called upon the
jury for ample damages.
Several witnesses were examined to establish the plain-
tiff's case, but the facts adduced in evidence were the
same as those that have been made familiar to the public
by the lengthened details connected with the catastrophe
which have been published in all the papers.
Mr. TOwNSEND, with whom was Mr. Davison, for the
defence, complained of the attempt to prejudice the
minds of the jury in suggesting that he intended to
treat this matter as a joke, or to make merry over the
plaintiff's misfortune; it was unfair also to attempt to
make out any analogy between the case and that which
his learned friend had put of being thrown out of a
window intentionally, when neither the directors of the
railway nor the engineer who had been called on the
part of the plaintiff suspected that the bridge was not
safe previous to the 24th of May. Was there any
ground for imputation of negligence, or was there any
want of skill on the part of the company? He was iar
from wishing to insinuate that Mr. Grote had not been
injured, but be had a right to inquire to what extent the
injury went. lie had been debarred eight days from his
office; and the nature of the wound had been stated
before them. He felt assured that under the eireunas
stances the jury would not give
be an equitablecompen-
sationevmdie vindictive damages, but
such—and such only—as would
for any injury that had been sustained, whether
actions of the sort were to bo encouraged,
where parties
sought to recover for selling shares
never proved to have possessed—for which they have
loss ou commercial
transactions, of the extent of which there was no evi-
dence—and for personal injury, which there was reason
to believe had been considerably magnified.
The JUDGE, in summing up, said the first question
the jury would have to consider was, whether the
com-
plaint of the defendant was well founded, that the bridge
was not maintained with sufficient care and skill; and on
this point they had the evidence of Mr. Robertson, Capt.
Simmons, and Mr. Kennedy, all of whom told them that
the girders were not of sufficient strength to bear the
strain brought upon them. The former said the strain
was double what it ought to be; Captain Simmons said
that the girder, at all events, was insufficient; and than
this opinion was confirmed by Mr. Kennedy. It was
alleged that, three celebrated engineers held a different
opinion; but it was really not fair to set up repeated
opinions of gentlemen who had not been called, and
who, on being cross-examined might have changed that
opinion, against the testimony of the gentlemen who
had been called, and who had given the data on which
their judgment was formed. If the plaintiff in their
opinion sustained his first allegation, the next ques-
' tion would be as to the damages to which he was
entitled; and on this question they were to take into
consideration the bodily suffering, mental suffering, and
the loss on account of business, which the plaintiff had
sustained. They were allowed to take into considera-
tion compensation for the horror which a person must
sustain in being present at such a scene as this, as well as
the positive testimony as to the personal injury he had
received. As to the damage plaintiff's business had sus-
tained, it was hardly necessary for him to produce his
books, or the cause would have been most unnecessarily
prolonged. General evidence was, he thought, sufficient,
and that they had had. The Learned Judge concluded
by again directing their attention to the two questions
they had to consider.
Mr. TOWNSEND excepted to the summing up, on the
ground that the Judge should have told the jury that the
company was not liable, unless guilty of negligence, either
in making or maintaining the railway.
The jury retired, and after an absence of half an-hour,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2501.
'1 he JUDGE certified that it was a proper case to be
tried by a special jury.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE

OF FRIDAY.

FOREIGN-OFFICE, APAIL 6.

The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr.
William Visconte Le Quesne, as Consul in the Channel
Islands far the Free City of Lubeck.
WHITEHALL, APRIL 6.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint the Hon.
Henry Fitzßoy to be Lieutenant Colonel of the Artillery
Company of London, in the room of Brice Pearse, Esq.,
resigned.