, 1881-05-29
ONE FARTHING DAMAGES.
I1ow an American Celebrated tho
Fourth OF .suiy III London.

Lonip.: Times
In the Queens Bench Division on May Il,
at the sittirgs in lane, before Lord Cole
ridge, Mr.. Justice Field, and Nr. Justice
Bowen, Il motion fur new trial in the case
Of Cooinb and wife against Moore was heard.
1t was an action against the principal pro-
prietor Of the Moore Il Burgess Ali1lstrc1s,
who is an American and lives ut st. JOHNS
Wood, for annoying tie plaintiff and his wife,
who are his near neighbors, by letting otI
rockets on the night OF the 18th Of July,
the centenary of American 1ndepend-
ence. According to the case for the
plaintiff, more than Il dozen rockets had been
let OIL ut midnight, and the explosion lasted
for half :in hour, ;tnd sounded, it WAS said,
like cannon, and so alarmed and startled the
lady as to effect her nervous system and
cause considerable indispositlon. After hear
ing tile whole case, however, one Of the jury
said, ''Verdct fo: the defrhd:.t'': but they
ultimately agreed to ycrdlctfur the plaintiff,
for Il far1iling damages.
Mr.. Kib:on HOW moved for a new trial, OH
the ground that the verdict was against tile
evidence. and that the damages were so
utterly Inadequate that the verdict was per-
yerse,and amounted, i'll 4 legal sense, to his
conduct.
Lord Coleridge-You got your farthing.
Tie amount OF damages is for the jury.
Nir. l,ibton-But the amount was So rtlic-
ulously small as to render the verdict illogl-
cal and absurd.
inrtl Colrridge-All yert'icts for fart!ling
are in IL strict sense Illogical. for of course in no
case does fhr,hnG measure the amount Ut
the du;nages But the real meaning Of such Il
verdict is thIs.-the jury say to the parties, &c o
your way thinking that i fit e.,sl of the c,.st:
Sir Kihton urged that it was the result Of a
compromise. The letting oT rs,ekels ut midnight
was unlawful act, causing annoyance to
neishhors~ and the lit subject of IN action, and
thr 'a!,,,Ses ought not 70 be ridiculous.
letting oil ii few rockets.
Mr. Kio1op-t was more 1 than few rockets;
rockets. [Ln,lglltcr] There vas Such Il nosc
created at tic dead Of night that am sure il
til: shade of Washington bud revisited The
earth he would have stcruiy rcbuicd his cnthu-
siastic coun, ,ryuien.. Much lnnshter.]
Lord Coicri'lsc observed th,lt the jury-an
English jury-had given the American verdict
against the Ergiish,nan.
Mr. Nbton-Uh. my lord. the question OF ma
tiouality did NOT arse [it:sush.cr.l Counsel
urged that ii the plaintiff WINS entitled TO YER
dict ut all verdict for iarthiny was ridiculous
aud absurd, and therefore },crycrsc.
Lord Colcrdge, however, with the concurrence
OF his brethren, refused the application. NJ
iubt. he suid.a verdict tor Il farthing is strictly
illogical, but still 1t Is mantainas''e on sensible
grounds When the jury tiisfrust the cnsc for
tho plaintiff or think thAt it is i truEpery ease,
and that tho action ought not to have bccrl
brought, they in tho habit. with the approval
Of the Court, of giving verdict fora farthintF
say that in strict law the plaintiff had no right
to complain, but the. case is go small
and contemplate thit We give n verdict
for tarthing, which may be iltoyica!+
| but is very good sense. That has l,e.1l done
in this case. and my learned brother VINO
tried the case tells us that he would have given
| d verdict for the defendant OH the ground that
substantially the case for the pl:tinttf failtal.
though technically 1t may huvei i'een tnainra1l-
able Nh doubt the letting otl Of these rockets
lit night may have. AROUSED the lady, hut il she
had just looked ONT Of the window she would
have seen that they were only rockets. and
could do her 10 harm. Such aelinn, 1,O
doubt Is nlaiutailblc iu law where there Is, in
legal sense, nuisance AMI IN injury" tn an in
d:yilual. but the dAn1uEcs are for the jury. and
there is in this case reason tO Interfere with
the verdict.
Application dismissed.