Chester, Tuesday, Sept. 1...
The Times, 1824-09-17T00:00:00

1- O- 1 3 upUNULL nIe pieanings til tills Cale, as an aCtion toi recover compensation in drnaages from the defendant for an assault comnmitted on the plaintiff, by violently biting his finger. The de. fendant pleadedt the general issue,and upon that plea isiue wasjoined. The plhintiff is a bread-baker in Stdckport ; the defendant who is a farmer, and also keeps a public-bouse at 5ellor, in the rdjoin- ing county of Derby, enrgaged, on the 30th of January last, in a wrestling match at a puiblic-haeuse in Stockport, with a man named Arneld. It would appear, tlat in this wrestling natct the deferdant was undermost, and holding Arnold fast * the latter saitl, " I'll give you some drink if you'l let mne get up." When the defendant tgot up, he was rather angry) and offered to lay a wager of a gaIA of beer that iie would ivrestle any body in the rooms The plaintiff then exclaimed, " It ig your fault, and he served you right." The result of this ex ression was, that the defeodant made an attack on the plaintiff, ant would have got him down, if the wall behind him had not prevented hnm from falling. The defendant then seizod the fore-finger of the plaintiff in ht, mouth, and bit him so ferociously as to destroy the attery, and smashed and crushed the tendons whicl met at the middle joint. The plaintiff, in the greatest enguish, endeavoured to disengage the finger, but in vain. A person struck him to make hin let go his hold, but he still held the finger with the tenacity of a bull-dog, Force at length made the deRendant let go his hold, but so barbarous and cruel was the bite, that blood actually flowed from the corner' of lhis mouth. A surgeon was caUed, and medical applications were resorted to, but in consequence of the complete destruction of the artery. and tiN injury sustained by the tendons, inflammation along the arm en: sued, and an abscess was formed under the arm-pit. So sesoiLs w,as the woundd irlicted, that the amputation of the arm was for somc time apprehenled, and the deplorable consrquence to the plaintit] waS7 that the fore-finger was gone for life, and the adjoining fingei was perfectly useless. Having addressed the jury to the above effect, Mr. Joxzs, the plaintiff's counsel, called Vvw esses to prove the facts he had stated. Mlr. TMsPrLr, for the defendant, did not contend that his client should'be acquitted. As no justification was pleaded on the record, hemade the mitigation of damages the object of his speech. He begged the jury to recollect that this was a drunken squabble that both parties were fuddled, and that the quarrel had ariser from the uncalled-for interference ot'the plaintiff himself. They all know what the poet said- " Those who in quarrels interpose, A Must often wipe a bloody nose." The learned Judge amrnmed up, and the Jury found a verdict fez theplaintiffl-Damages 1251. 17s. 6d. MfORETOIr V. HIARDON, fOOTSt, AN'D 4OTHERt. This was an action to recover compensation in damages from the defendants for a serious injury sustained by the plaintif, in conse. queace of their coach running over hima. The ATTORL-EY GxEEnAL stated the facts.-The plaintiff was a peor man, who earned Iiis daily bread by carrying coals In a one. horse cart, from the coal-pits at Adlington to Macclesfield, where he rdtailed thenm. By this means this poor nian got a comfortable live- lihood, till the 5th of February last. Oni that day, when about-200 yards from MUacclesfield, on his return from the pits, with his one- norse cart loaded with coals, he hear4 the noise of a coach behind him in full galop, coming down thc hill leading to Macclesfield. Thepoo, man, greatly alarmed at- e near. approach of this coach going at a furious rate, instantly drew his horse towards the footpath to the lef.hand- side of the road, in tbt direction of blaccleafield; but he was unfortunately overtaken by the coach, which passed in. siiden the foot.path, between him and the wall, and upset the poor man and his cart. This was the wrong side -of the road,- and the man who was driving ought to have.gone to the other side of the cart, on the high road, where -there was ample room for him to pas;. However, the conseq~uence of his ne ligence was, that the plaintiff was knocked dow, cither by the horses or the coach, which it wasimposslble to ascertain, so sudden was the injury inflicted. The coach-passed over himn, and he dotld oply say, that it wasf foTtunate for Ellaxd, one af the defendata, who wats thl driver at the time, tltat tills poor tj aj vas still liv1ngf7r ile lnjurt inflicted was of a mostteriousnature- His leg-Ws 5sroAtdred-eo'Tio. lently,thatacompoond fracture was theeonsaetziAre4, nd.it:was necessary to hold a consultation of no less thasn three ineakal tmen to determine if they shoiuld not have recourse to ainputation in order to *ave the mn's life. Fo tlifee daysthey were in dbaht, till the frActure at leingthltaking a more favourable turrn ammiutition'was no longer considered necessary.- However, the corHEe uence of- this in. jary to this man has- been, tliat-inee it occurred, ei hai: laboured uider the severest suffering;'ilfid it was only witbin theahst month that he has been abin to stand upripht, and even that.with- the assistance of crutehes. He- has lost his time, for ever- since he has not been able to work ; and- is-.b horse beihg of no further use to him, he was obliged. te sel it.- the circunmstances. of this case were of an aggravated nature, for the Coachman, in approaching a public town like Miacclesfield, at the hour in which he was passing, between six and seven in the evening, in. the month of February, was boiund to exercise the utmost caution and stea.liness. So far from this, he should be able -to prove to them the greatest negligence. No lamps were~ lighted, -the coach was going at a violent sped, 'nnd instead of the regular coachman driving, Harden, wko was far from sober, had charge of the reins. The life of every individual was at stale if such Improper conduct on the part of coachmen or coach proprictors were allowed to pass with impunity. Such was the injury inflicted on this poor man, that no damages, ha wever large couid compensate hitn for his suffering. He would prove, by the evidenee of the purgeon who attended him, what had been his stuffering, what bis present state was, and how long lie would have to continuejn that state before he could earn one shilling. It would appear before them, that, as long ai he lived, he never would be thesame man. At the timethis wound was inflict. ed on the alaintiff; there were two men and a *oman on the road near him, the latter of whom was conversing writh him when they saw the coach driving down the hill, and they would describe the. whole transaction. One of these men bad a wheelbarrow, into which they put this unfortunate man, tnd wheeled him- to 3laccles- field to the coach-office. There they saw the coachman and Hardon to whom they mentioned the accident; but Hardon, they would tell them, was absolutely stupified in liquor. Unless he were drunk, If he possessed the ordinary feelings of humaslity, he could never have given the answer he did. "- Vhat," said he, with the greatest in- difibrence, " haq any thing happened ? - If his leg. is broken, take him to the doctor's." No man, when so Steeous ans injury had hap. pened, oould have made so brutal an answer if he were iii his sober senses. Ile then mounted thecoach, and drove offts unconcerned as if nothing had happened. After this, AI. Cluldw, the attorney for the plaintiffi, taking pity upon his situatioD, in.coenpany wlth the surgeon, waited on the proprietors, . m'erel from the iii. plulse of humanity, to see if they would make this mnan any reparation. They would be astonitshed to hear the oiher of these proprietirs in so grievous a case. LThe extent of their liberality, and their sense of the injury inflicted, were marked by an offcr of 8i. They pleaded, as an excuse that he was dIrunk, whichl, however, he s3hould prove as not the fact; btit even if he were, that was no reason why a druJiken man's life should be placed in danger by the negligent and improper conduct of a coachman. MIr. Clulow rejected the ofEer with indignation, and said, " How is it possible that this man, besides his logs of labour; can ever pay the doctor's bill, which will amount at least to 301. ?' Under these circumstances, lie had no other course left him, than to cone here and appeal to them, to compel these unfeeling and hard- hearted men to give hlimn that reparation which they reused to give him voluntarily. This was a ques:ion of great irmportance to the public, and they should teach coach-proprietore that they were not to endanger the-lives of his Majesty's subjects by allowing negligent or improper persons to drive their coaches. The learned gentleman then callcd a witness, whose evidence fully made out the facts he liad stated. After the first witness had been examined, Mvlr. AsHWOvRT and Mt3r. TE31PLE, for the defendants sub mitted that this action could not he maintained. From the de- claration, it appeared that this was an action oR the case against the defendants for a consequential Pat, the result of the rnisconduct of one of their servants. Now, it appeared that Haraon, who was now one of the defendants, and was also a proprietor, was the driverat the time. The act was therefbre the immediate act of Hardon ; and it was laid down as a Drinciple of law, that en such a case it should have been an action' of trespass, and not an action in the case, other- wise Hardon would be liable in two capacities, both as servant and princinal. An action might be brought againstthe principals for the act of an agent, but there they would have their remredy against the agent. Here the other two defendants could have no remedy against Hardon, if damages were giveni against them. The learned counsel cited several authorities in support ofthis objeetion. The CounT were of opiimon, that the objection was good, but allowed the case to go on, on the condition that a nonsuit salould be entored, in case of a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to moye the Court above to set it aside. AMr. ASiEWOERTI, in addrcming the jury for the defendants, urged the hardship and injustice of making the other two nropri. etors liable for the misconduct of Hardon. It was unfair to make them pay for his dellnquency, because they happened to be wealthy, and lie was unable to pay any thing. The learned gentleman called some passengers, vwho stated that Hardon the driver was sober, that le cal ed to the cart, which was on the wrong side of the road, and endeavoured to avoid it. They also said that they felt no shlock in passing the cart. Mr. HIrLL, in reply, after commenting at considerable length upon the inconsistencies of the evidence, called upon the jury to protect the lives of his Mlajesty's subjects by visiting upon the defendants ample damages for the injuries this poor man sustained. They wrer bound, n a case of-public impostance lIke thias, where the safety of so many persons depended upon2 the proper care and attentien of coachmen, to mark the sense of their imnproper conduct by the severest damages. tI'he learned J uDG, in summing up, said that it appeared to him, on a fair and impartial view of the testtmony on boti sides, that that of the plaintiff was most entitled to credit. The question of da- m;,ges, if they should find a verdict for the plamitiff, was entirely or their po atsderatione Verdict for the plaintifr_Dima-zes M.L CIHESTER, TUESDAY. SEPT. 14. MEARS V. STAXNEY.