The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1866.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

CAUTION TO WORKMEN CARRYING TOOLS IN THE STREETS.

SMITH V. EMERTON.

This was an action to recover 6s. damages, sustained by
tho plaintiff through the negligent conduct of the defen-
dant.

The plaintiff stated that he was walking in the city on a
recent occasion, and he met defendant, who was carrying a
small plane, called a plough. Apiece of sharp iron projected
over defendant's arm, and caught the sleeve of the plain-
tiff's coat, tearing it, so that it was necessary to have a new
sleeve. Plaintiff considered that defendant was carrying
the plane in a careless manner. _ .

Defendant said he carried the plane as safely as ho pos-
sibly could. There was a particular way that ho and his
fellow workmen carried the tool, and he thought it was
the plaintiff's duty to have avoided it.
His Honour—How were yuu carrying it on the day of the
accident ?

Defendant—Just as I hold it now ; the iron will project
a little way over the arm. There was plenty of room on
the pavement for plaintiff to have passed without torch-
ing me.
His Honour—l do not think you carry the tool in a saf e
position.

Plaintiff—l may say that defendant offered mo sixpence,
so that I might get the coat repaired, but I told him I
should want a uew sleeve.

Defendant—l did not offer anything. I only said that
it would not cost more than sixpence to repair the coat.
Plaintiff produced the coat, and his honour said it was
quite clear there must be a new sleeve. He was clearly
of opinion that klaintiff was entitled to recover. It was
the duty of workmen carrying tools in the public streets,
especially in the City, to take care that no injury was done
to passengers. Defendant should have a bag for his tools
as carpenters had, or he should cover them up so that they
might be safely conveyed through the public streets
There was no doubt he had not done so in the present
case, and therefore plaintiff would have a verdict with
costs.

POL ICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

BOW-STREET.

GOING TO MEET A FRIEND.—George Marshall, who re-
fused to state his address or occupation, was charged with
creating a disturbance at the South-Eastern Railway Sta-
tion, Charing-cross, and assaulting Inspector Bengough.
The Inspector stated that the prisoner entered the sta-
tion shortly before the arrival of the Margate train, and
was walking along the arrival platform, when witness
stopped hint and told him he could not be allowed to go
that way. The prisoner said he wanted to meet friend
who was to collie by the Margate train. Witness told
him that was the wrong side, and pointed to the place
where the train would arrive. The lamps were lighted
at that part of the platform, but where the prisoner stood
it was in all in darkness. The prisoner went to the
proper place and waited till the train came in. After the
train was cleared he again came up to witness and said, "Do
you know what I could do to such a thing as you ? I
could knock you down and jump your - inside out,"
at the same time striking ,him in the face. A struggle
ensued, but with the help of a porter and a police-constable
he was at once removed to the station-house. He used a
great deal of bad language.

Thbmas Archer, the oleo porter, said that when he came
to the inspector's assistance the prisoner struck at him,
but he warded off the blow.

Cyrelius Dudman, F 81, who took the prisonor to the
station, said that he continued to use the same sort of lan-
guage as was mentioned by the inspector, not only on the
way to the station, but in the cell during the greater part
of the night.
Inspector Brennan said the prisoner was the worse for•
liquor.

The prisoner admitted that he was the worse for liquor,
and had said more than he ought. He thought he was
entitled to go to meet his friend, and he was irritated at
being interfered with. He denied that he struck the in-
spector, who, however, knocked him down.
The inspector said there was no objection to the prisoner
going to the part of the platform where the train was to
arrive. But it would be dangerous to allow strangers to
go blundering about in the dark in parts of the station not
open to the public. He denied that he struck the prisoner,
but they fell together in the course of the struggle.

Mr. Flowers said with the evidence of threo witnesses
before him he could not doubt that the prisoner struck the
inspector. The prisoner denied it, and though he was not
on his oath he (Mr. Flowers) paid every attention to what
he said, being reluctant to believe that a man would tell a
lie under such circumstances.

The Prisoner—lf I had struck him I would freely own
it. I would not tell a lie about it for .E 5.

Mr. Flowers—Then why should he ?

A young woman named Margaret Humphrey here came
forward and tendered her evidence. She said she wont to
the statiou.with the prisoner to meet her husband, and
went down the platform a little in advance of him. She
turned round to see if he was following her, and saw him
lying on the platform, the inspector having knocked him
down. She would swear that he did not strike the inspec-
tor.

Mr. Flowers—How can you know that if you had your
back turned?

Witness—Oh, it was not a minute.
Mr. Flowers--It was long enough fcr him to be knocked
down.

G. W. Humphrey, husband of the last witness, hero
came forward, saying that he saw the whole affair from
the beginning.

Mr. Flowers—They did not seem to know- that you had
arrived.

The witness replied that he did not come by that train,
but by one that arrived at London-bridge an hour and a
half earlier. In the meanwhile he had been home, and
finding his wife was gone to Charing-cross he followed.
He described an extraordinary scone of confusion, in
which 14 or 15 porters joined in knocking the prisoner
about; and when he remonstrated with them for their
brutality two of them seized him, flung him on the ground,
kicked him, and told him that was all he got by inter-
ference.

Mr. Flowers said it was extraordinary that his wife said
noting of all this. The prisoner must pay 10s. or be
imprisoned seven days. He was liable to a fine for going
there drunk at all.