Star.
London, England, 1822-11-15 00:00:00

WADDINGTON.

Little Waddington, on receiving his sentence to 12
months imprisonment in Cold Bath Fields Prison,
said, " I hope your Lordships wilt allow me the use'
of pen and ink there."
COURT" We have nothing to do with that."
IVaddington-4, Though I did not sell the book, I
will bow with submission to the sentence of this Court,
when the Bishop of Clogher is brought to justice."
The little man was immediately taken out of Court
by one of the officers, to undergo his sentence.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 14.
DI/14COMBE V. FINLAYSOI43. _ _

Mr. Serjeant LENS stated this case to the Jury. It
was, he observed, an action brought by the plaintiff,
a newsvender, against the defendants, who are linen-
drapers, residing in Holborn, to recover damages for
an injury received on the defendants premises under
the following circumstances:—On the 11th of Au-
gust, 1820, the plaintiff went into the defendant's
shop to get payment of a small bill due to him. In
going through the shop he fell through a trap-door
which had been improperly left open. In the fall he
broke his leg in a shocking manner. He was imme-
diately conveyed to St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
where he remained six months, and was at length
discharged, but in a crippled state, so as not to be
able to move without crutches, from which state he
has not yet recovered. No personal blame was at-
tributable to the defendants; but as they were legally
responsible, and as no offer of compensation had since
been made, the present action was brought.
John Duncombe, examined by Mr. JONES. The
plaintiff is my father. He is a newsvender and book-
seller. I remember having been sent for on the llth
of August, 1820, to the house of the defendants. On
my arrival my father had been brought up through
the trap-door. He was stretched on a shutter, and
a sheet placed over him. He was bleeding peofusely.
He said to me--" Oh, John, I fear that I am mor-
tally hurt ; my leg is broken in a terrible manner,
and I am sadly bruised." He then desired me to
look for a little child which he had in his arms at the
time he fell. It was my child. On inquiry, how-
ever, I found that the child had been taken home,
and was quite unhurt. Mr. David Finlayson was in
the shop when I came. He said to me, " Your fa-
ther came in for the payment of a small bill, and was
told to come up to the desk, and in his way up he
fell through here (shewing the place), one of the shop-
men having neglected to close the door." He then
turned round to some young men who were in the
place, and asked how could the door have been left
open? but they denied having done it. This was
about the time of lighting candles. There was no
light from the window in the shop upon the trap.
My father was taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
where he remained six months. He came out with-
out being fully cured, and ha has ever since been un-
able to go without crutches. He has been unable to
carry on the business of a newsvender as before; that
is done by his wife, with the assistance of a boy.
On his cross-examination, he admitted that it was
not necessary for customers going into the shop to go
up to the desk. The trap-door was rather beyond
the counter. One of the defendants had called twice
to see his father, and seemed mach concerned at
what had happened.
Two surgeons, from St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
proved the nature of the injury sustained by the
plaintiff. It was a compound fracture of the leg, a
little above the ancle. It was probable that he would
recover/so as to be able to go without crutches, but
he wesfld never be able to go about as before.
Mr. Cohen, a butcher, residing nrar the corner of
Chancery-lane, proved the situation of the trap-door.
It was near the counter, at one side. He was near
falling in through the same door a short time before.
On his cross-examination, this witness admitted,
that unless one was passing through to go to the
back of the house, he need not go by the trap-door.
A customer coming to buy need not pass this door.
There was a bell in the shop, which communicated
with the back part, which persons having articles to
deliver in the house might ring. When witness went
to be paid, he did not go to the desk, near the trap-
door; he went to the counter.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN addressed the Ju'ry for the
defendants. He could assure them, he said, that no
persons regretted the unfortunate circumstance out of
which the present action arose, more than his clients,
although, as he was sorry to observe, insinuations to
the contrary had been thrown out on the other side,
about not making compensation, and so on. The cir-
cumstance was lamentable, no doubt, that a poor man
in the situation of the plaintiff, whose subsistence de-
pended on his personal exertions, should be deprived
of the use of a limb; but the Jury did nut sit there

to decide merely accoraing to their feelioge, but ac-
cording to the facts of the elite, and to the right
which the plaintiff had to recover from the defend
ants ;for unless that right could be clearly proved,the
plaintiff was not entitled to damages, however much
the Jury might feel for his unfortunate situa.ion.
It
would aptieax' and he had witnesses who would provel
the fact, that the place where the trap-door was situ-
ated was one to which the plaintiff had no tight to
go: that it was beyond the counter where money was
invariably paid ; and that if the plaintiff went there,
ha was a trespasser, and must take the consequences.
It would also be proved that the circumstanceof the
door being open was one of necessity. In order to
turn on the gas, one of the young men went down
the trap-door, and remained below only so long as
was necessary for that rurpose. If he should prove:
these facts, he submitted that his clients were notl
I bound to give any compensation for an injury which,
however to be regretted, the plaintiff had brought
upon himself. He then called
Andrew Gibbs.—l was in the employment of thei
defendants at the time of this transaction. The trap-,
doot was behind the counter ; it was where customers,
coming into the shop ought not to go. It was about
dusk when this happened. I had been in the shop a
few minutes before, and bad gone down the trap-door
to turn on the gas. I left the door open because I
could return nn other way. I delayed as short a time
as possible. There was a house-bell in the shop. I
did not remain below a minute. Money was invari-
ably paid at the counter, and not at the desk near
the trap-door.
John Maclean was a shopman with.the defendants,
at the time of this transaction. The trap-floor was
beyond the shop.counter. Witness was near the door
at the time. Did not tell the plaintiff to come up to
the desk to be paid, nor did any person in his hearing
so tell him; if any person had so told him, witness
must have heard it. Does not know whether Air. D.
Finlayson was present at the time.
Cross-examined by Mr. Jos:ea.—Could say posi-
tively that it was not the practice for purchasers in
the shop to pay money at the desk : the desk is only
for the shopmen to give what money they may re-
ceive from customers. The shop has been altered
since, and the desk put further back.—The cashier of
the defendants proved the invariable custom in his
time of not paying money at the desk. He was there
only to receive money from the sliopmen.
Mr. Squires was in the practice of going to the de-
fendant's shop. Money was invariably paid at the
counter, not at the desk.
The Collector of Taxes gave a similar testimony.
Mr. Serjeant LENS replied, and contended that a
sufficient case bad been made out to entitle the plain-
tiff to damages, not for the misconduct of the de-
fendants, but for the negligence of their servants, for
which they were legally responsible.
Mr. Justice Bualtouoit, before summing up the
evidence, said, that during the course of the de-
fendants' case, he expected to have heard it proved
that the plaintiff had gone idly and wantonly to that
part of the shop where he had no business, and that,
his fall was the consequence of his own imprudence.l
No such thing, however, had been .attempted. If it
had appeared that the plaintiff had obtruded himself
into a part of the premises where strangers had not
usually access, and where the same precautions would
not be taken to guard them from accident by this
trap-door, then, indeed, the defendants would not
be answerable for what occulted ; but this was not
by any means proved. If the Jury believed that a
person, having business in the shop, might come
near this trap-door, and that owing to the neglect of
their servants any accidents occurred, the defendants
were certainly liable for them. Looking at the whole
of the case, it appeared to him that the defendants
had given no satisfactory answer to the plaintiff's
case. His Lordship then detailed the evidence most
minutely ; and the Jury, after consulting to&ether
for a few moments, gave a verdict for the.plaintiff—
Damages £5O, and costs.