The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-07 00:00:00

cuted by both the old people in the year 1848. The de-
fendant had supported his parents when they were un-
able to support themselves, and, with his wife, livel in
the house with them for several years, and when they
died he paid their funeral expenses. He had also paid
some of their debts, and it was in consideration of his
having agreed to do these things the deed was executed.
Mr. BAron Alderson said the deed was not executed
so as to pass a married woman's property. He was of
opinion the deed was no defence.
Mr. Gray said he could not say that it was. The deed
had not been prepared by an attorney, but by a village
schoolmaster.

The jury then found a verdict for the plaintiff.
•
(Before a Special Jury.)
DEGG (ADMINISTRATRIX) V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY
COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Skinner appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr. Dowdes-
well for the defendants.

The plaintiff in this action, Caroline Degg, was the ad-
ministratrix of her deceased husband, James Degg, and
she sued the Midland Railway Company to recover da-
mages for the death of her husband, which took place on
25th October, 1855, by reason of the negligence of the de-
fendants' servants in driving some carriages against a
truck which killed the deceased. The action was tried at

the last Gloucester assize=, when the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff with 2501. damages ; but, as the plaintiff
in her declaration had • only claimed 2001., the verdict
was entered for that amount. Subsequently a new trial
was granted by the Court of Exchequer, on the terms
that the plaintiff.should be allowed to amend her decla-
ration, by raisingiher claim of damages to 2501., and
that the defendants should be allowed to put another
plea on the record, to the effect that the deceased was
voluntarily assisting the servants of the company in re-
moving a truck on a turntable, and that the servants of
the company, by whose negligence the damage was
alleged to have accrued, were persons of ordinary care
and skill, and competent to move the tracks along the
railway, and that the negligence complained of was
wholly nnauthorised by the company. We do not think
it necessary to repeat the evidence, which was much the
same as that given on the previous trial. It will be suf-
ficient to state that on the day in question, the deceased,
who was in the employ of the Messrs. Pickford, was en-
gaged in unloading a truck on a siding by the Midland
Railway. Near him there was a turntable, where some
men were engaged in moving a truck. On the siding
there were some loaded waggons, and some empty wag-
gons, with a small space between them. When the men
were moving the truck on the turntable, the deceased,
thinking that the three men engaged in that operation
wanted some assistance, volunteered his aid and jumped
down to'lend a hand. While engaged in this operation an
engine was brought into the siding by a man named Ash-
ley. The engine ran against the carriages, and, as there
was no One to warn the men at the turntable, the engine
drove the carriages one against another until they knocked
against the truck on the turntable, and jambed the de-
ceased between the buffer and the wall. He was kept in
that frightful position for some little time, until the
carriages could be removed; and when that was done
the deceased was taken away to a hospital, and
died the same night of the injuries which he had re-
ceived. The negligence relied on by the plaintiff was that
of the man Ashley, who was foreman of the porters, but
who was appointed on the day in question to act in the
capacity of " shunter," in the stead of the man who usu-
ally performed the duties of that office, but who was at
the time in the hospital ; and the main issue raised by
the special plea was whether Ashley was a man of ordi-
nary care and skill and competent to move the trucks.
He was not a "shunter," though he had sometimes acted
in that capacity, and it was stated that he did not give
the usual signal by the whistle, though this was denied
by the defendant's witnesses.
Mr. Baron Alderson summed up the evidence, and left
it to the jury to say—first, whether the accident was
caused by negligence on the part of. any of the defend-
ants' servants ; and, secondly, whether the man Ashley
and the engineer were persons of ordinary skill and care,
and competent to move the carriages on the line. His
lordship told the jury that_ if they found the second
question in the affirmative they ought to find for the
defendants' servants on the second issue, even though
the defendanto' servants, on the particular occasion,
were guilty of negligence.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and were
absent some time ; on their return into court they found
the first question for the plaintiff, and the second for
the defendants.
The verdict was then entered for the plaintiff, with
2501. damages, on the first issue, and conditionally on
the second issue, there being a demurrer to the second
plea to be determined. •
The learned Baron also gave the defendants leave to
move to enter the verdict in their favour on the first
issue raised by " not guilty," if the Conrt should be of
opinion that the facts stated in the special plea consti-
tuted a good defence on " not guilty."
CRIMINAL COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Wigbtman).
Ann Allen, aged 46, and described as a nurse, was
charged with the manslaughter of an infant child, named
Mary Hadley, at Berkeley, on the 30th May last.
Mr. Powell appeared , for the prosecution ; Mr. Ser-
geant Thomas defended the prisoner.
It appeared in evidence that a young girl, named
Mary Hadley, who stated she was at the present time
between 18 and 19 years of. age, was in November last
delivered of an illegitimate child. The child was born
on the 28th of Nov. The apothecary who attended at
the delivery was unable to travel to the assizes from
ness, but hie deposition was read, and from that it ap-
peared that the child was about a seven months' child.
It was, however, a healthy one ; and while it continued
at the mother's breast it thrived. After six weeks the
mother wished to get a situation, and placed it with the
prisoner, who was a nurse at Berkeley, to bring it up by
hand, and engaged to pay her 3i. a week. The child
was Ld on biscuits, &c., but it began to waste away,"
and on the 7th of April the prisoner sent for the apethe•
cary who had attended the mother. The doctor found
the child suffering from pain and constipation of the
bowels, and severe indigestion. He prescribed medi-
cine, and directed the prisoner to change the food, but
he did not continue his attendance after the 21st April.
From that time the child continued to gel more ema-
ciated until the 22d of May, when it was removed and
placed under the care of another nurse. For a few days
it seemed to take its food well, and to he improving, bat
on the 29th of May it threw up its food, and died the
next day. On a post mortem examination it appeared
that there was enlargement of the mesenteric glands,
and other disease, which the doctor who made the
examination attributed to defective nutrition, and in
another part of his deposition to enlargement of the
mesenteric glands, caused by cold. Similar evidence
was given by a young surgeon who was examined as
a witnes,, and who gave it as the result of his ex-
perience that' a seven or eight months' child bad
nearly as good a chance of thriving as a nine months'
child, and that children broinsht up by hand and fed
on cow's milk thrive at If.rkeley at least as well
as those who enjoyed the food provided by nature at the
mother's breast. The prisoner had always appeared to
belsind and attentive to the child..
A witness was called to give her a good character, but
-the right witness did not answer. By some inistake the
prisoner's daughter, a very healthy-looking young wo-
man, stepped into the box, holding a bouncirbos child in
her arms. She stated that the child had bsen from its
birth under the prisoner's care; and thus the child was
inadvertently " put in evidence."
Mr. Sergeant Thomas addressed the jury for .the pri-
soner at some length, and urged that there was no pre-
tence for making. the charge.
Mr. Justice Wightrnan, in summing up the evidence,
observed that some of the statements trade by the sur-
geon appeared rather strange to unprOfessional people.
He (the learned Judge) had always understood that
children would sometimes die if brought up by hand, and
that it was sometimes necessary, in order to save their
lives, to obtain a wet nurse. The jury must exercise
their common sense on the case, and not convict the
prisoner unless they thought she had, by her gross neg-
ligence, caused the death of the child.
The jury, without the least hesitation, found the pri-
soner not guilty, and she was discharged. '