Star.
London, England, 1822-11-29 00:00:00

tralAm

,elt/
30, STRAND, London;
Anil sold in 'everfrown to the Kingdortt.
LIQUID, in Bottles, 6d. 10d. 18d. and MIL such.
Also PASTE BLACKING, in Puts, 841. 12. d. and 18d. each.
A Staling Put of Paste is equal tu Four is. bintlosof
it Ask for WAKUSN's Blackings , „.

I
1 •

.

DRA. AND 1(AIMI110 EJ `7I:7ATOUS DRIVING.
•
LLOYD E. NEEDHAM. •
Mr. Jams stated the case. The. plaintiff, he said,
was a widow, who. brought her action to recover
compensation for the serious injory she sustained in
consequence of the defendant's negligence in driving
his gig, the effects of which she would carry with her
to her grave. The plaintiff's husband was formerly
an extensive silk-mercer in Cranlsorne-court,, but lint
being prosperous in business, he discontinued.dealitszi
on his qwn account, and for some time emplonl4l
himselfih selling.silkkon commission for Writs.; that
business getting bad, he became still farther reduced,
and it became necessary for the plaintiff to assist in I
their mutual support by her own personal exertions.
On the evening of the 12th of August, the plaintiff
and her husband went out to take a walk together in
the Regents Park, and as they were crossing the road
in front of the Park gate, the defendant in his gig
drove furiously over them both, by which they were
both so grievously injured, that the plaintiff's hus-
band, who was immediately taken to Middlesex Hos-
pital, died within the hour ; and the plaintiff herself,
although she escaned with life, had suffered long an.l
painfully before she could even leave her bed, and
was likely to suffer the remainder of her life, having
lost, the use of her right arm. A Coroner's Inquest
was held on the plaintiff's husband, and they brought
in a verdict of Manslaughter against the defendant,
on which charge he has since been tried at the 0:d
Bailey, and acquitted ; but the verdict on that trial
could have no effect on the present action, which was
brought for the injury sustained by his negligence.---
One could not, indeed, but wonder that Mr. Need-
ham, who is an opulent brewer and hop-merchant in
the Borough, keeping a country-house at Notting-hill,
near Kensington, should not have taken some steps
to render such an action unnecessary ; he had, indeed,
on the 18th of August, six days after the accident
happened, sent a person with a check for ten guineas,
which was laid on the plaintiff's bed as a compensa-
tion for her injuries; which check still remained in
the possession of her attorney. He was sorry Mr.
Needham had not, from his own feelings, come for-
ward to make the poor and deeply-injured plaintiff
that reasonable compensation which the feelings of
the Jury would now do for him : they could not take
into their consideration the loss of her husband ; but
they would consider the pain she had suffered, and
was likely still to suffer; the expense she was at, and
the great and lasting effect of the injury, which ren-
dered her unable to procure her future support.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, who was Counsel for the defend-
ant, said his client was by no means the rich man he
was represented, and he had a family of ten children;
still he was always ready to do, from his own motion,
what was sought by the present action ; but it was
impossible he could have done it while he was threat-
ened with a prosecution, when it might have been
considered an admission of guilt.
The CHIEF BARON proposed to Mr. Adolphus, that
if his client were disposed to render the action un-
necessary by making the plaintiff a reasonable com•
pensation, that he (Mr. Adolphus) should then name
a Gentleman of the Bar to whom it should be re-
ferred, to determine what the amount of the com-
pensation should be.
Mr. ADOLPHE; said his client had already offered
to pay all the expenses occasioned by the lamentable
accident ; and would, from his own feelings, have
made the plaintiff any further compensation that he
could think consistent with a due regard for his own
family ; but he did not think that he (the defendant)
would choose to be bound in the manner suggested.
The CHIEF BARON.—Then let the cause go on.
A great number of witnesses who saw the fatal
transaction, Stated that the defendant drove his gig
in a very furious manner, and that he appeared to be
intoxicated. As the evidence has already been given
in the account of the Coroner's Inquest and the trial at
the Old Bailey, it cannot be necessary to repeat it now.
Mr. ADOLPHUS called witnesses to prove that the
defendant was perfectly sober at the time the unfor-
tunate occurrence took place, and that it was en-
tirely accidental.
The CHIEF BARON read over 'all the evidence to
the Jury; and charged them, that whether the de-
fendant was drunk or sober at the time he so very
rgrievously injured the plaintiff by driving over her,
could make no difference in their verdict, if they be-
lieved the injury was the consequence of his negli-
gent; careless, and improper driving, as laid in the'
declaration. If, indeed, they believed he was d: unk
at the time, they must then at once come to the con-
clusion that he drove improperly, because it was im-
, possible that it could be otherwise; but he might also
drive improperly, and be answerable for the conse-
quences, if he were perfectly sober, as some of the
witnesses stated. It could be no justification of the
.defendant, if they believed that, at the moment the
accident happened, be was striving to stop hishOrse,
if by his revious improper driving be had made that
'impossible ; and it was in evidence thaf he hid bben
`driving furiously, in such a way as sin man ought to
drive, for a considerable distance, .before li4..droye
.over the unfortunate plaintiff.
The Jury, after a stuert consultation, said, that it
was their wish to give the plaintiff £2OO, over and
above all expenses:-
The Cities. lkutow said, the best way of. doing
Would be to find aheir;verklict for that sum, and the'
,apicanst of the mss. s. bill.. .
The juTy in= -oi4ely retuned i verdict Pori le
lainthi for 1.255. AI) I 1. —4
fr: • • .

•