The Sun.
London, England, 1866-12-08 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn

and a Special Jury.)
SHELLEY AND WIPE V. THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND
SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.

The present action was brought by Mr. Samuel Shelley,
a gentleman farmer, who had two residences, one at 20.
Eaton-place, Brighton, and the other at a place called the
Oaks, at Balcombe, Sussex, where he farmed some land,
to recover compensation for the negligence of the com-
pany's servants, by which his wife sustained serious per-
manent injuries. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and
that they wore not liable for the injuries of the female
plaintiff.
_ _ _

Mrs. Mary Shelley, the female plaintiff, who had to be
helped into the witness-box, and who v, as deeply affected
several times during her evidence from the pain she was
apparently enduring, said she was 57. On the 20th of
February last she returned from Bognor to Brighton by
a second-class carriage, in which there was no passenger
but herself. There had been snow during the day, and it
was very dark when the train reached the terminus about
half-past 3 o'clock. She heard a porter call out "Brighton,"
and immediately after the carriage door was thrown open,
but the porter went away. There was no porter near the
passengers' train, and they all appeared to be engaged at
the luggage train, which was at the other end of the plat-
form. She made no attempt to get out for about 10 minutes,
but being anxious. about her luggage sho attempted to
alight on what she supposed was the platform, when she
fell with great violence against the " turn table," the
carriage being some distance from the platform. She
screamed out ; some of the porters came to her assistance.
She was taken into the waiting-room and conveyed home
in a carriage, but she had to be placed in the dining-room
as she was in such a condition that she could not be car-
ried up stairs. From the day of the accident until the
middle of May she was unable to leave the room, and she
was then conveyed to 13alcombe in an invalid carriage
supplied by the company. Previous to the accident she
had enjoyed the best health, and was in the habit of walk-
ing from six to ten miles a day, and driving out by her-
self. By the accident three or four of her ribs were
broken, her loft side from the arm to the foot was in con-
stant pain. She felt Fan and weakness in her back, a
sense of nurabness in the back part of her head, and her
left eye was also very weak. She was a continual sufferer
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Holt appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Hannon for the
defendants.
Mr. Shelly was then examined, and said that before the
accident his wife enjoyed such bodily health and spirits as
seldom fell to the lot of women. She used to romp with
her grandchildren as if she was one of them. She used to
assist him in his farming operations, and to accompany him
out shooting, and he never knew her to suffer fatigue
from bodily exertion. She was uow a helpless cripple, and
could not walk 100 yards without falling down, and from
the effects.of one of these falls she had been laid up for a
month.
Pe
mh yi
ns iecai at
nssu practising
-
oufrt.,he injuries of the
apf
IDTsßearhrdli
eegßt
lhpoeolt
antaor (nneh,
et
extent
fxmn
judge.
td n dra.
nDhudar
having
eßner
aou
cceakkun,lnae
nu:
summed
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed
the damages at £l,BOO.

OUP Stnee's pamphlet upon
the Mu I E
l taLx•R .—givielsr.tlhV.
eaßynaalysis of several samples
of ale bought in London, which show a considerable aver-
age of salting, Jo. The " Ale connors" occupation is in
abeyance ; why not revive it ? Here, for instance, at the
present moment, is a dispute between the Burton and Edin-
burgh brewers; tho latter asserting that they sell their
ale at .a cheaper rate than the former. This may or
may not be so, but why leave it to the inter-
ested parties themselves to decide ? Why nut have
a quarterly return of strengths ? For strength=
that is, the amount of malt in a given quantity
of beer, can alone determine its value. The price, per se,
is no true indication ;—as price must be always taken in
tiquality. Sixpenny-
worth ec
of o
grog,nthi is, o
grogreighed still, whether it contain but connww against,
two-
pennyworth of spirit. So it is with beer, and no true
judgment can be arrived at without ascertaining the
strength of its legitimate body—MALT. The number of
X's on a cask has nothing whatever to do with the ques-
tion—because one brewer's X X X X may be another
brewer's single X. The agitation is one in which the
public must profit.--Cavil Service Gazette.