Star. — 1825-08-22 (London, England)

NEGLIGENT DR/V/NOVAZYIS V. 15 ROTHERTON•  This was ari action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation in damages for an injury which he bad sustained in being thrown off the Liverpool mail, owing to the negligence of the defendant's servant. Mr. POLLOCK, in -rating the case to the Jury, tailed the facts, which the .witnesses he had no doubt would prove to the satisfaction of the Jury ; and if they dii so, he had as little doubt that the liability of the defendant would, be very plainly proved to him. The plaintiff WAS manager of the Hibernian Gas Company, and had come from London by the mail to Liverpool. Thicoach had actuAlly arrived at the Post-office. The :guard went to deliver the bags, and a Gentleman who waslinside called to the coachman to let him out. The -maths:rail came off the box and let the Gentleman our; but before the coachman could again regain his seat or the reins of his horses, they galloped away, and on passing by Rasket-street the coach upset, and the plaintiff was violently thrown to the ground. This shocking accident occurred in September of last year, and up to the piesent time the plaintiff was unable to move without Crutches. The plaintiff had'also lost a lucrative situation, and for these accumulated sufferinns he now sought recompense from an English Jury. The manner in which tbe accident occurred was proved as stated by nip witnesses. Mr. SCARLET? addressed the Jury for the defendant. Nu complaint, he said, was made of the conduct and -sobriety of the coachman, and he contended that the coachman's alleged negligence in this case was altogether excusable.  Mr. Baron" HULLOCIC left it to the Jury to say, whether the accident occurred through negligence or accident, and such accident as no precaution could have avoided ? If they thought the latter, they would find for the defendant, if not,'they were bound to find for the plaintiff such compensation as they might think him reasonably entitled to, under all the circumstances of the case. • •  The Jury retired for halt an hoer,, aid thee returned a verdict• for the plaintiff—Damages 3SOL * CHILD myaran. • There were' to lesi than five persona he thfi calendar (one man rid four women) charged with child. murder'; but the Grand Jury ignored all the bills againit thesis; and eo evidence being offered on the Inquisitions, the prisoner s were all actii.ltted. MAtiSLAUGHTED.  James Hardy. was indicted for killing arid slaying John Finch, at Chorley;• on'the 6th of August last.— everal witnesses were called, from tihose testimony appe.irea that the parties met at a public-louse, knd having got nearly intoxicated, the deceased and :114;Iner g.it to fightirz " up and down, according  'to the brutal custom of this county. ,The prison& baring got the 'deceased down; 81 pundied" (kicked him in the stomach), and in a few minutes he died. The prisoner called witnesses to character.—The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to mercy. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the brutal and unmanly custom of fighting ,g up and down" was confined almost exclusively to the county of Lancaster, where it had become so prevalent, that it was necessary to exercise the utmost rigour of the law in order to put a stop to it. In the ordinary standing mode of fighting, there was but little apprehension of those dreadful events which so frequently resulted from the cowardly practice of kicking, or, as it was called, "punching" a fallen antagonist; were it not that the Jury recommended him to mercy, he should have felt it his duty to transport him, as a warning to others ; but attending to that recommendation, and to the circumstance of the prisoner's having a family, he should sentence him to one year's hard labour in the public jail. Tile prisoner, who was a good-looking young man, had two brothers in Court, who wept bitterly when they heard this sentence pronounced.