Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1879-08-02 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

ACTION AGAINST A FARMER FOR SHOOTING. _  At the Nisi Prins Court, Leicester (Midland Circuit), before Mr. Justice Lindley and a common jury, the case of Cooper v. Hill was heard. This was an action against on farmer for shooting the plaintiff and causing personal injuries. Mr. Graham appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Buszard and Mr. Sills for the defendant. The defendant was tried at last 1189i7.09 for shooting at the plaintiff with intent to murder him. He was acquitted, and the plaintiff now endeavoured to obtain a civil remedy for his injuries. The plaintiff's version of the facts wee as follows: The plaintiff, with two friends, Allen and Warrilow, made an appointment to meet at Newbold Verdon on the evening of the 6th of December to pass a social and musical evening tegether, Warrilow being a skilful performer upon the "coffee-pot." The plaintiff missed his friends, but met with them at the end of the evening, and all three started at about half-past ten to go home together to Desford, biking the direction of a footpath across one of the defendant's fields. When they got across the field they took shelter from a shower of rain under the hedge. While they were there the defendant came up to them with a gun in his hand, and asked what they were doing there. The plaintiff said, "No harm.' The defendant said, "I'll shoot you." The plaintiff said, "You mustn't," and began to run away. He had hardly started when he received chargeof shot in his shoulder, and heard the defendant call out, "I've shot one of them; run, run, Tom, and meet them." The plaintiff was helped home and remained under the doctor's hands till the 22nd of March. His arm was permanently injured. Allen and Warrilow confirmed the plaintiff N statement, and deposed that they had even the defendant deliberately raise his gun to his shoulder and fire. Warrilow, it was stated, had his " instrument" under his arm in a bag, which appears to have been taken for a ferret bag by the defendant. The case for the defence was that the plaintiff and the other two men, who are well known in the neighbourhood under the nicknames of "Tommy Dodd," Cloggy," and "Banks," were in the defendant's field for the purpose of taking rabbits; that the defendant was told by his bailiff that the poachers were there and came out to stop them, taking his gun in case the poachers should have a dog with them; and that while he endeavoured to pursue the plaintiff and was rubbing the wet off the gun, he accidentally touched the cock, and the gun somehow went off. It was urged on behalf of the defendant that if the plaintiff was trespassing when injured, no negligence on the part of the defendant could render him liable. His lordship left the matter generally to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £BO.  NATIVES OF N,HA AND THE CIVIL —Mr. Latmohun Gbose, a barrister from  SEttv,. Calcutta,  ....... -.....--. addressed , public meeting, at Willis's Rooms, on the exclusiett of the natives of India from the Civil Service in that country. The chair was taken by Mr. Bright, who, in a long speech after the address, criticised the financial policy of the Government in the first instance, and mid that the only way in which it appeared possible for them to redeem their pledgo of economy was by stopping public works—a course which would be a grievous injury and misfortune to India. He thought that the Civil Service of India should be made accessible to the natives by the establishment of examinations in that country, and by sending out fewer men from England to fill vacancies. The Government seemed to him to be losing the confidence of the people of our Eastern Empire, as a, necessary res Ult of the policy they had pursued. Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Mundella were also among the speakers. Wastr mercenary legislators vote in favour of bill, with a view to put money in their own popkats„ it cannot be averred that "there is no speculation in their eyes',