The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1888-02-25 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.  WLZAN V. MZILEIN AND DEAN.—At the Liverpool Assizes, on Wednesday, before Mr. Justice Cave, this action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries caused to the plaintiff, owing, it was alleged, to the negligence of. the defendants servants, the plaintiff being Andrew M'Lean, a mechanic, formerly employed at Messrs. Lards' Works, of this town, and the defendants the contractors for the new Wirral Railway, who pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Addison, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Shand, and Mr. Fred. Smith (instructed by Mr. H. F. Neale) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Gully, Q.C., M.P., end Mr. Lewis Beard (instructed by Messrs. Gill, Archer, and Maples) were counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff, who is fifty•two years of age, on Saturday, the 2nd July last, was on hie way home from Laird's Works, and whilst in Beaufort-street he waited fora tramcar. Here the road was crossed by a line used by the defendants in the construction of the Wirral Rail. way, and when in the act of turning his head to see if the tram was coming, plaintiff was knocked down and run over by some waggons wsich were being propelled by an engine from behind, and which belonged to defendants. ,He was taken to the Borough Hospital, where both his legs ware found to be seriously injured, one of them being after. wards amputated. The plaintiff was called, and said that at ,this crossing the defendant's train usually whistled as they approached it, but on this occasion the engine did not whistle until it had knocked him down and run over him —Mr. Gully, in cross-examining the plaintiff, asked him if his hearing was not affected, like that of many other people similarly employed in ship-building and boilermaking yards, and the plaintiff replied in the negative. —Mr. Gully: Not at all :—Plaintiff It may be a little, bat I can hear you now very well. (Laughter.) We are, as a general rule, a little dull, but I hear quite well what is said in court. an reply to other questions plaintiff said his wages at the time of the accident were 365. a week. He remained nine weeks in the hospital, but had to go back afterwards to have an operation performed on his other leg. —On behalf of the defendants, it WAS contended that the plaintiff brought about the accident himself by walking right in front of the trucks when he saw them coming. A man named Thomas Humphreys, in the defendants' employ, said that before the accident a flagman on duty named Walker waved his flag, whilst the engine-driver blew his whistle. As soon as the whistle was blown the plaintiff turned round and stepped right into the middle of the railway. He was then five or six feet from the tracks, and in trying to step over the line he fell down and was run over.—His Lordship: He did not do it on purpose, did he T—l cannot say that, but it seemed a funny thing for a man to walk right in front of the train.—His Lordship: A fanny , thing, indeed; like attempting to commitimicide (laughter).—Mr. Gully: If he had not moved, the train would have cleared him? Witness: Yes.—Another witness also said if plaintiff ' had remained where be was, he would have been clear of everything. The engine.driver not only shouted for the plaintiff to "look out," but blew his whistle, whereupon the plaintiff walked right in front of the train. 111 Le seemed bothered whether to go backwards or forwards. At the close of this wituess's evidence, Mr. Gully said he would not call any more witnesses or address the jury.—His Lordship said that according to the defendant's witnesses the plaintiff was not only guilty of carelessness, but of something more resembling suicide than saying else. He did not wonder that the learned counsel for the defendants did not care to. address the jury again, and the only question, therefore, was the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.—The jury found for she plaintiff—damageo £305.  LOCAL Wrizs.—The will of the late Mr. John Dneworth, of Rock Ferry, who died on the 9th September last, has been proved by the execntors, Mr. Philip Henry Unsworth, of the Distillery House, ltristol, the son, and Mr. William Wilcock, of Seaforth, with personalty under £l,OOO —The late Mr. John Giddings Nicholls, of Sherwood, Rock Ferry, who died on the 16th October last, and the value of whose personal estate has been declared at £3,248 65., by his will, dated 26th January, 1885, gives all his property to his wife, Mrs. Agues Mary Nicholls, and appoints her sole executrix.  i--'1.30R. J. COLLIS BROWNE'S CHLORODYNE h. the Great Specific for Cholera Diszrhass, Dysentery. General Board of Health, London, report that II &Ole ass charm. One dose generally sufficient. rh Gibbon, Army Medical Staff, Calcutta, state.: 2 doses , completely cured me of Diarrhcea... From Symes and Co., Pharmaceutical Chemists, Simla. Jan. 5. 1890. To J. T. Davenport, jiadon. Dear 81r,—We congratulate you upon the widespread reputation this justly esteemed medicine earned for itself all over the East. As a remedy of general utility, we mach question whether a' tter is imported, and we shall be glad to hear of its finding a place In every Anglo Indian home. The other brands, we are happy to say, are now relegated to the native bazaars, and, judging from their sale, we fsncy their sojourn there will be but evanescent. We could multiply inst s noes ad teitnitein of the extraordinary efficacy of DR. COLLIS BROWNE'S CHLORODTNE in Diarrhcea and Dysentery, Spasms, Cramps, Neuralgus, the Vomiting of Pregnancy, and as a general Sedative, that have occurred under oar personal observation during many years. In Choleraic Diarrhcea, and even in the more terrible forms of Cholera itself, we have witnessed its surprisingly controlling power. We have never used any other form of this medicine than Collis Browne's from a firm conviction that ills decidedly the best and also from a sense of duty we owe to the profession and the public, as we are of opinion that the substitution of any other than Collis Browne's is a deliberate breach of faith on the part of the Chemist SO prescriber and patient alike.—We are, Sir, faithfully yours,