The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-19 00:00:00

WARD V. THE BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.

In this case the cause of action was the Commercial Life
Insurance Company against the Blackwall Railway Com-
pany, for the recovery of 1,000/., under the following cir-
cumstances :—lt appeared that there was what is called a
dumb barge at Blackwall, and a plank in connexion with it,
over which persons passed in order to get to land, or to the
railway. In the use of this plank, a person named Walter
Turner was passing over it, but it was placed so insecurely
that he fell from it, or it fell from under him, before
he could reach the dumb barge, and he was drowned.
His life was insured for one thousand pounds, and the
Company with whom it was insured paid the money, and
sought to recover from the Blackwall Railway Company, on
the ground that the plank had been placed there by them in
connexion with the dumb barge, for the purpose of convey-
ing passengers on to the railway. The case having been
tried in the Court of Exchequer, the jury found a verdict for
defendants upon the grounds that the declaration did not
set forth sufficiently distinct and clear that it was the Black-
wall Railway Company who had placed this plank there tor
the purpose of conveying passengers on to the railway, and
that, therefore, it was owing to the neglect of the Company
that the party lost his life who was insured in the Com-
mercial Insurance Office, and also upon the ground that it
did not appear that the person who had been drowned was
crossing the plank off which he fell, for the purpose of travel-
ling by the railway
Counsel for the plaintiffs applied for permission to amend
the declaration in respect to this point, as he said it was the
fact that the party who had been drowned was crossing the
plank for the purpose of travelling by the Blackwall Railway.
Lord DENMAN, in giving judgment, said it did not appear
to have been satisfactorily proved that the London and.
Blackwall Railway Company had placed the plank in ques-
tion in the position described, for the purpose of con-
veying passengers to their railway, and that, them e-
fore, the dangerous state in which it was found
could not be attributable to their neglect. On
this ground the defendants could not be held liable for any
accident occurring by the defective mode of transmission from
the dumb barge to the railway. With regard to the applica-
tion for leave to amend the declaration, in order to show
that the party who was drowned intended to go by the rail-
way, and was crossing the plank for that purpose when he
lost his life la:t the insecure state of the plank, he (Lord Den-
man) took it for granted that when counsel were bringing
cases on for trial care had been taken to draw up declara-
tions in a manner to make the case for their clients appear
in as favourable a view as possible—at least he gave counsel
credit for doing so ; therefore he could not now give permis-
sion to amend the present declaration.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he concurred with his Learned
Brother, for it had not been shown that the plank in question
had been kept in readiness by the railway company at all
times of the starting of their trains, for passengers to pass
over it in order to get on to the railway.
Mr. Justice WiQrrntAx was of the same opinion as his
Learned Brothers.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 18.
(Before Mr. Justice PArrnsom.)
TETE MIEN v. LONG.

In this case, Mr. Peacock appeared to show cause against
a rule which had been obtained for a mandamus against the
defendant Mr. George Long, one of the Metropolitan police
magistrates, commanding him to issue a warrant of distress
against Thomas Bird, the occupier of the house No. 15, South-
ampton-terrace, Kentish-town.
The question in this case arose from the construction of
the Acts 4 and 5 of Victoria, relative to the formation an d
repairs of pavements in the hamlet of Kentish-town. On
the 23d of July, 1845, the commissioners appointed to regulate
the formation and repairs of pavements in Kentish-town, in
accordance with certain powers vested in them by the
Acts 4th and sth of Vic., ordered the formation of a pave-
ment seven feet wide, which pavement passed in front of the
house, No. 15, Southampton-terrace, and in pursuance of
powers given to them in section 72 of the above-mentioned
Acts, they called on Thomas Bird the occupier of the house
No. 15 for s.6ths of the cost of the pavement laid down in front
of this house. The payment of this demand was resisted
and the result was, that a rule fora mandamus was obtained,
against which Mr. Peacock then appeared to show cause. He
urged that, by the 7th George IV,, sec. 20, the manage-
ment of the metropolitan turnpike-roads was vested
in certam commissioners, and they were empowered to enlarge
and alter them as they might see fit. By the Acts 4 and 5
of Victoria. it was enacted that the Commissioners, to whom
the power of paving and repairing the pavements in the
hamlet of Kentish Town was given, should have no