The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-11 00:00:00

had an abrasure on his leg, which afterwards sloughed
and gave him a great deal of suffering. Mrs. Head
had inflammation of the periosteum, which con-
tinced for some time. It might have been attended
with peril. Mrs. Head also kept her bed, and endured
much suffering. She had not recovered when I left off
attending her. I have seen them both several times
since. Mr. Head is now recovered. A month after I
ceased attending Mr. Head he was still lame with a
contracted leg. I saw Mrs. Head about three weeks
ago. She has in a great measure recovered, but I don't
think entirely. She has general debility, and cannot
walk to the same extent as before. At the latter end of
March she was unable to walk without support.
Cross-examined— The legs might have been broken,
but were not. Fever might have ensued, but did not. I
did not meet Mr. Bransby Cooper at Mr. Head's. /
knew he went there. I knew ho had given a favourable
opinion of the parties. He was sent down by the com-
pany. _ _ _

-Mr. Locke examined—l am a surgeon at Hoddesdon.
I attended the plaintiffs with the last witness. They
were not able to move to have the bed made for about a

fortnight. At the end:of three weeks they were wheeled
into tne drawing-rcora. Neither of them could put a
loot to the ground for a month. Mr. Head was obliged
to ue crutches. He was not able to attend to business

till the middle of February, He has since been bodily
ill from the effects of the eh( ek. Mrs. Head is suffering
at the present time from varicose veins. That may re-
main for :omd time,

By Lo:d CAMPBELL—I received my professional re-
monerstion from Mr. Head.

Mr. Pertridge examined—l am clerk in the brewery
at Mile-end. Before the accident the plaintiff attended
to the brewery daily. He was the acting partner.
was away about seven weeks.
Mr. CROWDER then addressed the jury for the defend-
antS, and denied that the company's, servants had been
guilty of any neglect of Mr. and Mrs. Head. Every
possible attention had been shown to them, and, so far
wMars. Bransthe
ggesotoi opne r ,from
m most negmtirnueen, t istuwrgaesopnr,owveads
st he
na
tt
down by the company to Hoddesdon, where he held e,
consultation with the plaintiffs' medical attendant, the
that he gave a favourable account of
their condition. rr
result of which was
_he
main question was, whether the
accident was occasioned by the negligence of the defend-
ants' servants. The Learned Counsel then contended
that every thing possible had been done by the com-
pany's servants in order to avoid the accident. This was
to be attributed entirely to the fog which came on, and
rendered the accident unavoidable. If, however, the
jury should be of a contrary opinion, he was sure they
would think that the case was not one in which the com-
pany should be punished by being called upon to pay
heavy damages.
Lord CAMPBELL, in summing up the evidence to the
jury, said they were now trying two actions, the one
brought by Mr. Head to recover compensation for the
injuries which he had sustained, and the expense to
which he had been put in curing hinigelf and wife of
the injuries which they had sustained by reason of the
negligence of the company's servants ; and: the
second sought by Mr. Head and: his wife to re-
cover compensation for the personal injury which Mrs.
Head suffered. It had been agreed that the same jury
should dispose of both actions at the same time. If there
had been no negligence on the part of the company they
would be entitled to a verdict, but if there had been such
negligence he (Lord Campbell) thought'the plaintiff had
done well (though he was, as had been described, a rich
brewer) in bringing this action against the company to
recover compensation. He (Lord Campbell) was happy
to say that in this case there was no personal miscon-
duct on the part of the servants of the company. They
appeared to be decent men, and had given their evidence
very well and very creditably. But it would be for the
jury to say whether they had any doubt that the com-
pany had been guilty of negligence. In the first place
they must consider whether the general arrangements
which had been made by the company for the starting
of the trains did not show negligence on their:part. Ac-
cording to the time-bill the Brentwood train, which was
to stop at Mile-end and Bow, started at 4.20. The
Hertford train, which was to stop at Stratford, and not
at Mile-end and Bow, started at 4.30. Then came the
express train which was to follow the trains which were
to stop at Mile-end, Bow, and Stratford; and that train
started at 4.45. It was to start only a quarter of an hour
after the train which was to stop at Stratford. The
question for the jury to consider was, whether this was a
reasonable arrangement for all weathers; it being
admitted that no alteration could be made to suit a
change in the weather, such as the coming on of a fog, to
which the Eastern Counties line was peculiarly liable.
Even the times indicated by the time-bill did not appear
to have been kept, for the trains were behind their
time; and, instead of their being a distance of a quarter
of an hour between the Hertford train and the express
which followed, there were but twelve minutes. The
question for the jury then, was, whether it was a pru-
dent thing for the station-master to start the express
train after ho had only twelve minutes before started
the Hertford train, which was to stop at Stratford. If
the jury should be of opinion that there had been no im-
prudence, but that the accident was inevitable, and arose
from the state of the weather, they would give a verdict
for the defendants. Another point for the consideration
of the jury was the want of detonating balls which were
used as fog-signals. The person at the Bow-station who
had charge of the signals found that his stock was ex-
hausted. He had but one. The consequence was that
the Enfield train, not being aware of the danger, came
up to the Stratford station where the Hertford train still
was. It was detained there for a few minutes in conse-
quence of there having previously been a collision at the
Bow station between the Brenta end train and the Hert-

ford train. Here, again, if the jury should be cf opinion
that there had been negligence in ti,e:in arrangements, they
wouli find a verdict fa. the plaintiffs. if they should
come to consider the amount of damages to which the
plaintiffs were entitled, the jury would bear
in mind that thoze sufferings had been ♦ery great.
Lit the jury think of Mr. and Mrs. Head's situa-
tion, waiting for an hour or an hour and a half in the
carriage at the Water-lane station, Is ithout any person
to assist them, till the train came from London to take
them on. They had also been detained in bed for above
a mouth. The jury would not give the plaintiff greater
damages became his leg had not been broken, on the
principle that "my wound is great because it is so
small," but such a fair amount as would be a reason-
able compensation for his injury. The company had
acted most properly in employing that most eminent
surgeon, Mr. Branshy Cooper, upon whose professional
character his Lordship pronounced a warm eulogium,
founded upon a personal knowledge of many years.
It was impossible that the company could have acted
more properly than they did, sending Mr. Cooper down
to Eloddesdon to render the plaintiffs any assistance
which might be needed, and which his skill might en-
able him to afford. If the jury should find a verdict for
the plaintiff, they would give him reasonable damages
for his personal sufferings, as well as for the expenses
which ho had incurred, and for his loss of time. They
would also give damages to Mrs. Head, as a compensa-
tion for her personal sufferings.
The jury retired for a short time. and, on their return
into court, gave verdicts for the plaintiffs, with 1,000/.
damages.
The jury were again sworn, and assessed the damages
in each action at 5001.