The Sun.
London, England, 1802-07-09 00:00:00

Counsel for the Defendant had, very pr.; eiitly, riot
examined an} nesses, because they c,:uld not have
made out the Defence which was set tip in the pica
of the Defendant. ThiS was an ARion to recover •
damages for an inconverienca, which the Plaintiff's
wife had suffered, from a pantity of bricks and
rubbish in the street ;. and the case Wati a very
short one, and spewed, that a great deal of caution
ought to be observed by those Who left any rub.
hisli in the street, or who lay any thing in the
public way, which every individual has a right to.
use ; for if by so doing, any inconvenience is occa_
sioned to any such individual, the person so oh_
strutting, shall be answerable in damages for such
inconveniencei or he shall be liable to public
secution by indiatnerit : for he shall take care tla t
no individual shall suffer by his aft, and there:l6le
it behoved the Defendant to take care there should
have.been about this rubbish, either a fence to se_.
cure the passenger from injury, or a light to warts
him of danger ; or that there should be something
done to it to avoid the inconvenience, which was
not done in this case, and therd'ore the Defendant
was answerable; for as to the agreement to settle
this case on the Defendant's paying 51. for the
Surgeon's bill, there was no evidence whatever, nor
was there any other on the part of the Defendant,
and therefore the jury avould take it that this was
a dangerous obstruction which had occasioned this
injury, and for which the Defendant was answerable.
The damage done to the Plaintiff's wife in this
case might have been a little aggravated by the
habit of her person, from the paralytic stroke, on
which it was not necessary to lay any stress, but
the question here was, what was to be allowed on
account. of the bodily suffering and mental affliction
which must have accompanied that bodily suffering,
in estimating which the Jury would be moderate.—
It appeared that this person had been ill about three
weeks, in the most lenient way of considering the
case. As to the damages, the Jury would see what
either of themselves would have expo red to be -
given, were the Plaintiff's case their own.—Then,
said his Lordship, "If this was an indictment,
after your verdiet, it would be our duty to endea-
vour to hold out an example by which some re-
straint would be laid on an enormous evil of which
we have 'all too much reason to complain, as we
come in our coaches through passages which
ought to be 'kept unobstructed, and free fret
the passage of every individual. If this ob. 'I
strAon is continued, there must be some sum-
mary mode adopted to remove it, for really, in
our approaches to this Hall, the obstrutions are ab.
solutely intolerable. This you have nothing to do
with, at present, I admit, but althoug,h not ab-o-
lutely a part of this Case, I think it-right to take
this opportunity of noticing it ; and
to add, that I
do hope some persons will take this matter up, on
public grounds; -to put an end to these enormous
obstruCtions, by which two-thirds of some streets
arc taken up. I speak particularly of Sr. Martin's..
lane, the conduct of some ,of the inhabitants of
which provokes, and must meet with public oUnish-
ment, unless the obstruCtions in it be forthwith rel •
moved, and if no other persontakes this matter up,
I shall think it my own duty to institute a Prose- -
cation, unless the subject of complaint be abated.—
This, as I have said already, does not belong to the
consideration of the present Aa, you will now, if
you please say what damages the Plaintiff shall
have.",--Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages 51. -