Star.
London, England, 1825-08-22 00:00:00

NEGLIGENT DR/V/NOVAZYIS V. 15 ROTHERTON•

This was ari action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover compensation in damages for an injury which he
bad sustained in being thrown off the Liverpool mail,
owing to the negligence of the defendant's servant.
Mr. POLLOCK, in -rating the case to the Jury,
tailed the facts, which the
.witnesses he had no doubt
would prove to the satisfaction of the Jury ; and if they
dii so, he had as little doubt that the liability of the
defendant would, be very plainly proved to him. The
plaintiff WAS manager of the Hibernian Gas Company,
and had come from London by the mail to Liverpool.
Thicoach had actuAlly arrived at the Post-office. The
:guard went to deliver the bags, and a Gentleman who
waslinside called to the coachman to let him out. The
-maths:rail came off the box and let the Gentleman
our; but before the coachman could again regain his
seat or the reins of his horses, they galloped away, and
on passing by Rasket-street the coach upset, and the
plaintiff was violently thrown to the ground. This
shocking accident occurred in September of last year,
and up to the piesent time the plaintiff was unable to
move without Crutches. The plaintiff had'also lost a
lucrative situation, and for these accumulated suffer-
inns he now sought recompense from an English Jury.
The manner in which tbe accident occurred was proved as stated
by nip witnesses.
Mr. SCARLET? addressed the Jury for the defendant.
Nu complaint, he said, was made of the conduct and
-sobriety of the coachman, and he contended that the
coachman's alleged negligence in this case was alto-
gether excusable.

-
Mr. Baron" HULLOCIC left it to the Jury to say,
whether the accident occurred through negligence or
accident, and such accident as no precaution could
have avoided ? If they thought the latter, they would
find for the defendant, if not,'they were bound to find
for the plaintiff such compensation as they might
think him reasonably entitled to, under all the circum-
stances of the case. • •

The Jury retired for halt an hoer,, aid thee returned a verdict•
for the plaintiff—Damages 3SOL *
CHILD myaran. •
There were' to lesi than five persona he thfi calendar (one man
rid four women) charged with child. murder'; but the Grand Jury
ignored all the bills againit thesis; and eo evidence being offered on
the Inquisitions, the prisoner s were all actii.ltted.
MAtiSLAUGHTED.

James Hardy. was indicted for killing arid slaying
John Finch, at Chorley;• on'the 6th of August last.—
everal witnesses were called, from tihose testimony
appe.irea that the parties met at a public-louse,
knd having got nearly intoxicated, the deceased and
:114;Iner g.it to fightirz " up and down, according

'to the brutal custom of this county. ,The prison&
baring got the 'deceased down; 81 pundied" (kicked
him in the stomach), and in a few minutes he died. The
prisoner called witnesses to character.—The Jury found
the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to mercy.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the brutal and un-
manly custom of fighting ,g up and down" was con-
fined almost exclusively to the county of Lancaster,
where it had become so prevalent, that it was necessary
to exercise the utmost rigour of the law in order to put
a stop to it. In the ordinary standing mode of fight-
ing, there was but little apprehension of those dread-
ful events which so frequently resulted from the cow-
ardly practice of kicking, or, as it was called, "punch-
ing" a fallen antagonist; were it not that the Jury re-
commended him to mercy, he should have felt it his
duty to transport him, as a warning to others ; but at-
tending to that recommendation, and to the circum-
stance of the prisoner's having a family, he should
sentence him to one year's hard labour in the public jail.
Tile prisoner, who was a good-looking young man, had two
brothers in Court, who wept bitterly when they heard this sen-
tence pronounced.