SECONDARIES' OFFICE, Cole...
The Times, 1824-01-05T00:00:00

This was a vwit of inquiry kbr the assessment Ot darnages suEramiu. bv the plaintiff, in consequence of the negligence of the servant of the defe.ndant, wbo is a satge-coach proprietor. The damages were laid in the declaration at 2,0001. M1r. FnEDEItWIKt POLLOCK was for the plaintiff. Mr. inqlish, a siurgeon, deposcd, tbat he was calicdl into the New England Coife-haase, to attentd upon the plaintiff, ou the 20th of MJy. The plaintiff's leg vas broken. The fractore wyas a com- poulnd fiatcture, of a very desperate niature, and Wvitliess did not con- ceive it tO be propot to proceed in such a case, wvithout having a conlultation with some eminent practitioner, being of opinion that amputation of the limb was absolutely necessary. WVitness advised that Mr. Travers, one of the surgeons of St. Thomas's Hospital, shouldbecalled in, and that gentleman accordingly attended the rliWntiff, whose life w s for some time in a very precarious state, ^nd vho suffered' dredful bodUy pain from the injury. M r. Travers also cone-ived amputation to be necessary, and performed the ope-| ratior. His chargew as 50 guineas, and he told the witness that lie coaldnottak-eless. Witness's clharge for attendance, whiclh was r?iven from the 20th of .Uav to the 17th of December, amounted to 1051. Theplaintiff vent out of town in July or August, having been recomn:ended by Alr. Travers andthe witness to do so, as the wound had begun to assume an unhealthy aspect, and required chanre of air. WVitness went with him to Rartasgate, where the plnintiffremrained two months, and where the wound improved, bat was ftr from being healed. It was searcely cicatrized yet. He te:l a crutcb, but could not mix in active life. Crcs's-exu.ained by Dilr. PR I LLIPS.-Plaintiff was a literary gen- tieman, a-nd the editor of the London Price Current, and the injury lie recmred must have interfered wvith his occupation. Witness be- lieved that he was no%w capable of carrying on his literary avoca- tions,, Re-examined.-Mr. Travers was in extensive practice, and 50 ?uine-, was the lerst that he cotuld have 'expected for his services. Witnu-s coulcd never think of taking off a limb wvithout assistance, nod w_q of late years more of uoi apothecary than of a surgeon. Plnir.tiff was in danger of hemorrhage while he wa3 going to Rams- -za19. Matthlip P,lake, a waiter at the Ne.w England Coffee-house, stat- edi that the pldritiffwas taken into the coffee-house on the 20th of Mfay. and renlained there until the 5th of June. The charges there were Mll. Is. Ild. Plaintiff was known to wvitness for years, and 'a1w3vs attended to lis business froni 9 in tie inorning till 8 in the v'enning. (rrn-exanmined.-This bill was a very little one fur 10 davs. The _211 tans not paid. Re-examincd.-Plaintiff was a married man, and had two chil- Urea. Iis %wife slept in the coft'ee-house: they occupied 3 rooms. t xwrmitld not he w0orth while for the proprietor to let three roems at a i-er rate than that at which the plaintiff'had them. There was no ear'otionate charge: breakfast wvas only a shilling, and every thing else in proportion. Peter 3loore. servant to the plaintiff, stated that his master was give u eeks at Rainsgate, attended al the time by medical men, and e rtitches. i vas-exninineed.-Plaintiff keptfiveser vants. ,r. t C nt.AES Pri tLLIPS then addressed tihe jurv for the defend- a jThe learned Counsel cnntended that the literary labouirs of the 1 'UtSiiffcnuld not lhave been long impeded bv the accident, and ar- -iled I hat the 1.-ant of proof that the defendant was able to pay heavy dLrn-F deserved particular consideration. The SECON DARY, in summing up, said the iury hadl to consider the animant nf' the inj;ury already sustained by the plaintiff, his past pain, and suPi rings, and the probable injuries conisequential upon the los he had sustained. Verdict-Damnages, 5001. _ SECONDARIES' OFFICE, CoZemasz.street, Jan. 3. FIMAYSON V. ELMS.