The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-02 00:00:00

THE TALUE OF AN EYE.

At the Rotherham county court, en Wednesday, a
case was tried of considerable importance to men em-
ployed at iron foundries, and it is the firstaction brought
under similar circumstances. E. Burgess was the plain.
tiff', and G. Booth the defendant. The formeris employed
as a puddler, and the latter a "shingler," at the Park
Gate Iron-works. The action was brought to recover 501.
as compensation for the loss of an eye, and was heard by
a jury. The defendant had the management of a tilting-
hammer of several tons ' weight, and the plaintiff and
other puddlere carried molten iron from the furnace to
the hammer, in round balls, to be beaten and welded.
The process was this :—Two balls were required to be
taken to the hammer in immediate succession, for the
purpose of being welded together. The hammer strikes
on two " faces" or anvils ; the ‘. splod" face, which
is so low that on it the balls can only be just
squared ; and the " high" place, on which the metal
can be beaten quite fiat. The first ball is placed upon
the splod face by the puddler, and atter receiving a
stroke or two with the hammer is turned over by
him, and then left in the care of the shingler, or hammer
manager, who, having in the meantime inserted into it a
rod of iron, called a "staff," lifts it upon the high face, to
be farther beaten. The duty of the second puddler is in
like manner to place his ball upon the splod face, turn it
over, and then move off, leaving the shingler to manage
the welding. On April 15 J. Cole took a ball of molten
ore to Booth's hammer in the usual way. Burgess, the
plaintiff, was some minutes later than he ought to have
been in following with a second ball—a circumstance of
frequent occurrence owing to unavoidable difficulties in
puddling. The plaintiff's ball was unshapely, in conse-
quence of which he was unable to get it upon the eplod
face. It should be mentioned that the usual course is for
the shingler to lift the first ball on the high face, and hold
it there quite still, while the second puddler places his ball
on the splod face, as, if it is moved about, more sparks are
thrown out, and the puddler is in danger of being burnt:
While Bargees was putting his ball on the splod face s
piece of molten ore gashed into his eye and destroyed it;
and the question at issue was, whether Booth west° blame
for the injury. The evidence of Burgess was, that Booth
threatened to " burn his liver out,', if he did not bring
tile his iron, and immediately threw down the staff in a
passion. This caused the metal on the high face to
turn over under the hammer that was in motion, and
throw out an immense quantity of sparks, one of which
struck the plaintiff's eye and caused the injury. The
plaintiff alleged that if the defendant had held the staff
still, as he ought, the few sparks which the blows of
the hammer would have sent out would have passed in
another direction, and he (plaintiff) would have been in
no danger; and that his injury was entirely the result
of the defendant's carelessness.

Witnesses were ca'led to say that it was Booth's duty
to have kept hold of the staff to prevent the motion of
the iron on the high face, until the hammer had been
stopped by gagging. They, however, admitted that
there was danger even when that was done.
The defendant, o❑ the contrary denied getting into a
Passion and said his object in dropping the staff was to
gag the hammer, in which, however, an assistant antici.
pated him. He admitted that the injury occurred be.
tween the fall of the staff and the gagging of the hammer,
but said it was not unusual to let the staff fall, when, as
in this case, the first ball had, in consequence of delay,
been a good deal beaten, and that no additional emission
of sparks resulted. The injury was purely accidental.
Witnesses were called to support this view. They ad•
mated that it was an imprudent thing 'to let the staff
fall, but said puddlers were exposed to danger under any
circumstances, and frequently got their eyes burnt.
They considered that Booth was not blameable, and
some of them alleged that the injury arose from a piece
of metal being thrown from Burgess's ball, during his
attempt to place it on the splod face, upon Cole's ball, on
the other face, and causing the emission of sparks. For
defendant, it was contended that, the puddlers should
wear wire gauzes over their faces, as the shinglers do,
and that if shinglers were to be exposed to actions every
time puddlers were burnt, they would be unable to carry
on their occupation. The jury, however, gave a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages 1,51.

THE PRINCESS ROYAL AND THE BALMORAL COTvAGERS.
--Now that the marriage of the Princess Royal is just
at hand, that auspicious event forms the engrossing sub-
ject of converse with the cottagers on the Balmoral
estates, among whom her Royal Highness is an immense
favourite. And justly so. Nowhere, else, perhaps, is the
state of royalty so entirely laid aside as at Balmoral, and
nowhere else does joyous, sympathetic human nature
shine out more undisguisedly among the young members
of the Royal Family. H.R.H. the Princess Royal was
wont to be a frequent visitor at many of the humble
cottages around the palace, and her habits of acute and
intelligent observation had• rendered her quite familiar
with the details of lowly life as seen in a Scottish pea-
rant's home. Burns has sung the praises of " parritch,"
" Scotia's hawely food." Some of our 'readers may be
surprised, while sager faces may relay into a genial
smile, on being told that a princess of royal blood has,
in this nineteenth century, donned the housewife's
apron, and in childish glee " tried her hand" at stirring
th'porridge pot. One anecdote we have heard of the
Princess Royal was this:—" Several years ago, when
quite a young girl, a matron, for whom her royal high.
ness had a special liking, had added one more to her
husband's family. The baby, of course, was an object
of superlative interest • and when the christening was
about to take place, the princess asked to be permitted
to attend and act as god-mother. This was freely agreed
to. The day came, and so did his presbyterian reverence,
but the expected god-mother, from some cause, did not
make her appearance, and after a little the ceremony
went on in her absence. It was barely concluded when
the princess came, breathless with haste and excitement.
On being told how matters stood, her undisguised feel-
ings found vent in a sorrowful "Oh but couldn't you
do it over again l " When the Court left Balmoral last
summer, the dependants were invited up to the lawn to
hid farewell to her royal highness. The feelings of the
princess so overcame her, however, that she was unable
to make her appearance before them, and the Prince
Consort bade adieu on her behalf. It is a cherished
hope that they will yet see'her at Balmoral, though her
home must now be at a foreign court. Invitations to
be in London at the princess's marriage have, we bear,
been sent, by her own special request, to Dr. Robertson,
the Prince Con,,ort's commissioner, and to Mr. Grant,
the bead pinekeoper at Balmoral.—Edinburgh Express.
Wo aro anthoti,cd to '3lat 3 that the report of Capt.
Snoto and Lieutenant Turner, of the 64th Regiment,
baying been killed in action at Luckuow is incorrect.
There is every reason to believe that these officers
are alive and well.