The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-05-26 00:00:00

.LAN" INTELLIGENCE.

CourT OF KING'S BENCII, lirtmenursli. MA% 26.

GRAY AND CO. V. AIIkAIA.

This was an action by the proprietors of the Old
Original Countion Stage-roach from London to Wind
sor, t.i rec..ver from the defendant, their servant, and
the driver of that roach, the SIMI of -127/. being the
amount of datnares and rims which they were com-
pelled to pay in an action brought against them by a
passenger named Hewitt, who bad sustained a consi-
derable injury from the overturning of the coach, in
consequence of the alleged carelessness and negligence
of the defendan•.

The plaintiffs' case was COilducted by Mr. SCARLETT,
UVIINEY, and Mr. W. H. TAVNTCN ; and the de.
Unelant's by the SoLterron-Oexaeat, Mr. MARKYATT,
11111(1 Mr. CIouLPURNE.
SCARLETT. in stating the plaintiffs' case, ex-
pressed his personal satisfaction that his clients had
brought this action ; and he was convinced that if such
actions were more numerous the public would be bet-
ter protected against the negligence of persons in the
situation of the defendant. Whether any moral blame
was imputable to the defendant or nut was a matter
net necessary to inquiet. into ; but of this he was cer-
tain, that the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to recover
in this action.
he fol!owing case was proved on the part of the
plaintiffs :—At the swings in this Court in February
last yea-, an action was brought by a lady named
Hewitt against the plaintiffs, to recover a compensation
in damages from them, as owners of the Old Windsor
Coach, fur a severe injury she had sustained by being
overturned in that coach in the preceding month of
August, on her way to Windsor, in consequence of the
alleged negligence of the coachman. Ihe Jury on
that occasion found a verdict against the plaintiffs,
and damages to the amount of 30W. which. added to
the costs of the action on both sides, amounted to -127/.,
which the plaintiffs were compelled to pay. Ihe coach
in question starts from the 'Bolt-in-1 un Inn, Fleet-
street, where it is the practice of the proprietors to
book half the passengers which they are allowed by
law to carry, and the remainder at the White Horse
Cellar, Piccadilly. The coach was calculated to carry
six insides itid twelve outsides, according to law, by
which the number of the latter however was limited
to ten when luggage is placed on the roof. In the
month of August, ISIS, the coach left London, but
there was no distinct proof given of the number of
pr,s.engers then in and upon the coach. It was proved,
however, that at the time of the accident there were
16 outside passengers, inclusive of the coachman, and
that upon the roof was placed a hamper nearly three
fret high, the property of Mr. Lillywhitc, one of the
proprietors, who conducted the business of the coach
at Windsor. When the coach arrived at a short dis-

tance from Hounslow, on this side, the coach came
ti-arty up with another Windsor coach, called the
Union. The defendant, who was driving the plain-
tiffs' coach at a moderate pace, drove to the ether side
of the road with a view to pass the Union. It ap-
peared, that at the spot where he crossed the crown of
the road was unusually high, and the declivity very
rapid on each side. In consequence of the coach be-
ing top-heavy, the moment it descended from the crown
of the road it was upset, and Mrs. Hewitt, one of the
inside passengers was severely injured. The misfor-
tune appeared to be the result of accident, and no di-
rket blame was imputable to the defendant. It was
sworn that the plaintiffs had repeatedly warned him
tiqt to carry wore passengers than his legal number,
b<t they should be subjected to penalties. Notwith-
standing the accident and the action to which the
plaintiffs were subjected, they continued to retain the
defendant in their employment for several months after-
wards, and had indeed admitted him as a partner into
the concern of the coach, but having since seceded
from the partnership, the present action was brought.
The SoLtcyron-OaNaltat., in addressing the Jury
on behalf of the defendant, concurred with his Learned
Priond, Mr. Scarlett, in the propriety of this action,
if it could have been made out in evidence that the
alleged negligence complained of was fairly imputed
to the defendant. He, however, undertook to shew,
that the overloading of the coach, which caused the
accident, was in consequence of the orders given by
the plaintiffs to his client, and consequently that they
alone were answerable for the accident which had so
unfortunately happened. One fact in the case proved
tl demonstration, that the plaintiffs were cognizant of
the circumstance that the coach was overloaded, viz.
that a hamper, nearly three feet high, directed to Mr.
Lillywhite, was placed on the top of the coach. There
was no evidence whatever that the defendant had taken
up more passengers than the law allowed. It was Incti
that there were 15 on the coach when the accident hap-
pened, but, for any thing that appeared, that number
might have been taken up with the knowledge of the
plaintiffs before the coach left London ; and if so, the
defendant was clearly not liable for the consequences.
The plaintiffs' own conduct 'hewed most clearly that
they did not think there was any blame imputable to
the defendant; for, after the accident, they continued
to employ him as coachman for several months, and
p.k him into partnership with them, which it was not
.d all probable they would bare done had he been to
slit; and it was not until they bad quarrelled with
him ass partner did they think of bringing this ac-
ting: These facts be undertook to prove.
The Cater Justtca interposed, and said, there In
no evidence to show that the defendant took up any
passengers after the coach left London. 1 hold it to
be the duty of the proprietors themselves to see that
the coach is properly and legally loaded before it pro-
ceeds on the' journey. It is their duty to attend the
coach for that purpose. and see that a greater nerialset
of passengers is not carried than the law allows.
Me. ficasurrv.—l apprehend. say Lord, that the
coachman is their agent fur that purpose. It is proved
that they repeatedly gave him instrections not to carry
n.ors paisesgers than the legal number.
The Caine Justica.—The manner and proof of
these instructions rather make against the plaiatillb
than is favour of them. They are continually sew
plainiag against the soachsan for taking snore than
the earaber of passengers aliened by law, not because
Of the danger to be apprehended to the lives of his
lifejosty's subjects, but because they don't choose to
`tin the bawd of paying penalties to the amount of

_ '