The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-21 00:00:00

reigulationa establiAati by taw were not violated, But there
was another particular in which the legislature had not inter-
fered, because the common law of the land, if rightly under-
stood, would be found to give an adequate degree of protec-
tion, namely, as to the construction of machinery in the neigh-
bourhood of which these 'children were called upon to attend
to their duty. AcCidents would be sometimes happening
of the most frightful description, owing to the construction
of the machinery.beine such, that an adequate degree of pro

tection was not 'given to those who served it. 'finis case was
one of that description. Au upright shaft, revolving at the
speed of some sixty revolutions in a minute, was left without
any casing round it, so that those who passed near it, par-
ticularly females; were liable to have their dresses caught by
it, and to be torn in the most frightful manner. The poor
girl, who was the plaintiff, was caught by, her clothes by, this
shaft revolving at the great speed he had named; and, sup-
posing five Minutes to have elapsed before the engine could
be stopped, and the motion of .the shaft to cease, she must
have made 200 or 300 revolutions. He would not describe
the nature of the injury .she had received.. She could only
receive a pecuniary compensation for it, anise amount
hid been arranged between his learned friera'ind himself.
But as it was not generally understood, the defendant was
not for a time convinced that the law bound him to make
compensation to those who sustained any injury in conse-
quence of his machinery having been left in such a state as to
expose the servants in, his factory to a degree of danger to
which they ought not to be exposed. The plaintiff, a poor,
factory girl, had no means of instituting such an action as
the present-in her own behalf. She might, perhaps, have
prevailed upon some person to undertake the risk of bringing
such a case into court, naming her father as her next friend ;
but Lord Ashley, hearing of this among other circumstances
connected with "factories, thought it became him, as a noble-
man who professed to entertain a deep feeling on behalf of
those engaged in these pursuits, at once to place his name
upon the record as bet guardian, so that if he were wrong in
his opinion that the law did not take the responsibility from
the mill-owner, he might be found to pay the expenses ofi the
action. It was with that feeling that his lordship's name
was placed upon the record, that it might not be said a pauper
was brought forward, who could not pay the costs if he
failed ; and that if it had been found that the law gave no
protection to persons suffering as the plaintiff, then it was
time to call upon the legislature for its interference. But
the defendant was now satisfied that the law did impose upon
him such an obligation ; and he (the learned counsel) trusted
that others would be convinced the defendant had not yielded
without good advice, and that they had their machinery in
such a state as to expose their servants to risk, they would
forthwith cause it to be altered. He would not trouble them
with any further observations. Poor compensation, indeed,
must money be to the poor girl, for she had been reduced
from health to the state of a cripple for life; but still more
moderation had been observed. Undoubtedly the misfortune
was not wilfully caused—it was merely negligence, which
was always removed from :criminality. A verdict would be
taken. by consent for £3OO e _ _

Mr. ALEXANDER would take advantage of the present
opportunity to say a few words to the jury on the part of the
defendant, in order that there ;night be no Mistake as to his
character. The defendant felt very deep regret that such a
misfortune should have happened; but it was perfectly clear,
as far as he was personally concerned, he could not have had
any share in the negligence, or in any other mischance 'to
which this accident was referred. He had no doubt the jury
were aware of the able, praiseworthy, and he might almost
add, the godlike conduct of the noble lord who had inter-
fered for the last few years in protecting the interests of the
helpless factory children. They would all feel alike upon
that subject. But he might be permitted to say, that although
the public might now be better informed as to what was a
master's duty with regard to his machinery, that the machi-
nery in question was made in the year 1835, by one of the
oldest firms in this county, and it had been in work till Janu-
ary last, when this misfortune occurred, without the least in-
terruption or accident. The defendant himself was at Man-
chester at the time, at some distance from the place where
the accident happened, therefore he could have no share in it
whatever. But, influenced by motives which did honour to
human nature—for bad there not been a doubt, the case would
not have gone before a jury—he had consented to an arrange-
ment whereby the plaintiff would be satisfactorily provided
for during the lengthened continuance of her sufferings. He
(the learned counsel) did not think that the settlement in this
case could do anything but afford pleasure to the poor and
helpless ; and he was sure the verdict would raise, in the es-
timation of the jury. the defendant, who was represented to
him as one of the most independent and respectable manu-
facturers there was in this county.
Mr. CRESSWELL observed that it would not have cost
more than 10s. to have put the machinery in proper order.
A verdict was then taken for £lOO. and costs.
WOOD V. RENSHAW.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £3B. 6s. 3d.
BIRKETT AND ANOTHER V. DELLIS. _ _

This was an action to recover the sum of £45, the value of
a horse and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wortley were counsel for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
This trial lasted for several hours, but the facts of the case
may be very shortly stated. Mr. Birkett, one of the plain-
tiffs, is a clerk in the house of Sir Thomas Brancker and Co.
sugar .refiners, but is also in business, in partnership with a
Mr.!Benn, as a cart owner. The defendant is a horse-dealer,
residing near Market Drayton. The plaintiffs had some time
before bought horses from the defendant ; afterwards, being
about to discontinue one of their teams, they sent a person to
Wigan fair for the purpose of selling the horse which) formed
the subject of the present action. This person met the de-
fendant, and the defendant sold the horse to a Mr. Lee, who,
after having had it for some time, returned it as unsound.
Both the plaintiffs and the defendant refused to receive it,
and the animal wandered about the streets till a policeman
took charge of it. The police sold it for £3O.
The answer of the defendant to the case was, firstly, that
he had not bought the horse ; and secondly, that if he had
bought it, it was through the false representations of the
plaintiffs' agent.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £45.
DATTYE V. TOMLINSON.
-Verdict for the plaintaitf, £139. 8. 2d.
KERR V. HUGHES.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £2OO. subject to a reference.
IMILGESS V. EDWARDS.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £5O.
NICHOL AND ANOTHER V. I,ARRIMOND.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £55. 10s.