The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-18 00:00:00

BAIL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. THE GREENWICH RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. WALLINGER moved for a certiorari to remove into
this Court three indictments which had been found
against the Greenwich Railway Company, for a nuisance
in building certain arches across a road, on the ground
that on the trial of those indictments many points of law
would be likely to arise on which it would be desirable
to have the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN granted the application.
HULL V. FEARNLEY.

This was an action brought by Benjamin Hull against
Henry Fearnley, to recover compensation in damages for
having been run over by the defendant's cart, in conse-
quence of which plaintiff's leg was fractured.
Mr. T. CROWDER stated the case to the Jury. The
plaintiff, whose name was Benjamin Hull, was in a humble
station of life, and up to the 9th of June last,
had been in the employment of Messrs. Venables and
Hull as light porter. The defendant, Henry Fearnley was
a coppersmith, carrying on business in Shorerlitch. On
the 9th June last, the plaintiff had been sent by his mas-
ters, who carry on business in the City to Tottenham-
court-road, for the purpose of fetching a parcel, and
when on his return, passing on the narrow footpath
close to St. Giles's Church, with the parcel on his left
arm, his right arm being towards the road, he felt
something touch his right arm, turned, and immediately
was knocked down by a cart, the wheel of which passed
over his leg and broke it. When picked up he was
found with his body lying across the pavement and his
feet in the road. The cart which had done this mis-
chief was the property of the defendant, and was driven
by him at the time. The cart drove on, but was stopped,
and the plaintiff was taken to a surgeon's, and subse-
quently to the Middlesex Hospital, where he remained
seven weeks. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was
earning 18s. a week, but had not been able to do any work
since. Mr. Venables had called on Mr. Fearnley, who had.
. never made any inquiries, and Mr. Fearnley had in con-
sequence gone to the hospital, and given the plaintiff 55.,
and said he must see what could be done for him when
he should came out. Application was accordingly made to
Fearnley, who offered 21. as compensation, which was re-
fused. Mr. Fearnley subsequently raised his offer to 51.,
which was refused. Mr. Fearnley had never imputed any
blame to the plaintiff, and the only excuse he had made
for his conduct was, that he had that morning been
teaching his son to drive. The Learned Gentleman then
called his witnesses, who deposed to the facts of the case,
and who were subjected to a = rigid cross-examina-
tion by Mr. Thesiger, on the part of the defendant, in the
course of which it was elicited, that at the time the ac-
cident had happened, an omnibus, followed by a cab, was
coming in an opposite direction to defendant's cart; that
the road was very narrow ; and that some of the per-
sons who had taken plaintiff to the surgeon's had said
that he had slipped off the curb, and been run over.
Mr. TIIESIGER (with whom was Mr. Knowles) then
addressed the jury for the defendant, and begged to as-
sure them that no one could more deeply regret the un-
fortunate accident than the defendant himself, on whom
his Learned Friend had been instructed to cast what he
(Mr. T.) must characterize as most unjustifiablelmput#-
tions. At the time the accident had occurred, the
defendant was utterly ignorant that he had occasioned
any accident. He was not driving at an unreasonable
rate at the time, the rate at which he was going not
being more than five miles an hour. The moment
the defendant knew the injury he had occasioned,
he went to the Hospital, gave plaintiff 55., told
him to want ' for nothing, and promised to satisfy
him when he should come. out. Now, what could he
have done more ? He contended that the plaintiff had
nutieistahlished the fact, that the injury he had sustained
had been in consequence of the blameable conduct of the
,defeitchint, which-he was bound to do to recover da-
mages,D In any ease of inevitable accident no plaintiff
,copy recover. sow, he contended that this was a case
of that natigehand therefore the defendant was not liable.
Mr. Justice WicarrNAN, in summing , up, said that
after the accident had occured it-appeared to hint: that the
defendant had done all that he could .doi antli,that4- con-
sequently, no blame attached to him for ths.t. ‘if the. Jury
were of opinion that the mischief was occasioned.by, in-
evitable accident their verdict must be for the defendant.
If, on the contrary, they should be of opinion that it had
been occasioned by any default of the defendant, then
their verdict must be for the plaintiff, with such damages
as they might think the justice of the case required.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.