Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1884-04-12 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

DEAVY DAMAGES AGAINST POOR LAW  OVA DIA,E4.  In the Court of Que. nki Bench VI:. Baron Huddler' ton hag delivered an important innlgrnent in the men of ilickmore • . the Guardian. 01St. George's- in: the-Eut,” which involved the question of the glonninistrution of the Poor-lave by Boards of Guardians as reprds Get treatment of lunatic.. It wee an action tried hy consent before his lordship with.* a jury. in which the wi no. at a stevedore sought to recover damages from the Guardians of St. Gnomes-in the- est. London, on biLL: If of herself and els children. for the death of hr husband, who was admitted as a patient into the infirmnry of the workhou-e, he being then in a state of lunacy through drink, and who forced himself through a tarred WilalOW on the third noor daring the absence of the nurse In charge of the ward and wee found dead on the ground below. Mr. Bonsey was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Clay for the defendant. 31r. Baron Huddlenton now gave his reserved udgment, observing that the negligence alleged by th • plaintiff won twofold, namely, negligence of ornieeionandof commission the negligence of omission being that her decemed husband ought to have been Wooed in tine lunatic ward of the workho :se, and further that he had been place un award that was not preperly attended to. When Sir,. Maumee, having obtained an onler, took her huslan•l to the workhouse, she WM Dr. beacon, then the aeon-tact medical on nor, and :old hint that her [unhand had nod fits through drink before, and that he had been tothet, h. house in the previous March, when he had been etre :pod down as a violent lunatic. en this information Dr. Deacon ordered the ninn to he taken to So. (74 Ward. and not to the lunatics' ward. But perhaps no feelino of humanity prevented I r. Deacon from sending the man there, for he explained that at this lime the Nu to ward, which could only hohl three persons, happened to be full. The window of the ward in which decmsed was placed was protected by three hori outal bare, but he broke thro gin the window annl wri,glcd through the bars, and thou he committed min ide. It did not follow from thG that the di/en:lents mere guilty of negligence if they did ail they reasonably could. But It appeated from the evidence that a hr. Reicher had reported to the guardians that it ems desirable that three vertical bars Mould be pint up at the windows of the ward adapted for hereone who had fits, and that, despite this intimation, the guardians had passed a resolution fee the patting op of three hori ontal bare, although Re. Belt-bee had reported to them that another patient, named John Evans, had got through the window in the third floor and broken his skull. His lordship, looking at the evidence, wee c:early of opinion that the ward in which the deceased was placed was ins nfficiently pro. looted, and that it was the duty of the guar flans, a. easponsible person. appointed by the ratepayera, to see that unhappy paupers suffering front mental disease were placed in wards sufficiently protected, no that they would not in ore themeelves. He thosght that negligence was shown in another respect. It app raced from the evidence that only one nurse- a most respectable woman— was placed in charge of a ward containing forty potions, of whom the docewil VIM one, and that it IVY while this poor woman left the ward for a few minute. the man commitu-d suicide, although it was said that if any one had Lees near him at the time he could not have footed himself through the bars of the window. Then the plaintiff had ewom that when one Sunday afternoon she went to we her hasberal In the infirmary of the workhouse she found him reading a Bible to another patient. and be took no notice of her or her children all through tine interview an which Me warned the nurse as to his state of mind, and she said, it There is not a bit more the matter with him than with myself.'' The nurse did not attend to the Yearning at the wife. There had been negligence, not of ombnion, but of commission, in placing the deceased in a rot sufficiently protected nerd, and, therefore, the negligence was proved. He would grant as damages .5350, and, acting as a jury under Lord Campbell's Act, he ahould have to apportion these damage.. He would award £l7O to the widow, LIO to the eldest boy, £2O each to Harriett and Frances, aged 15 and I respectively, 1:30 to the boy Thomas, £5O to the other -n, 3 year. old, and £5O also to the plaintifi's i of, nine months old. For this hie lordship said he would give judgment. Mr. Clay : for the defendants:: Will your lordship stay execution? Mr. Baron Huddleston emphatically): Not it lea cruel thing to parties in a cause that they should be dragged from one court to another on an appeal that may never : succeed. (Some applanse In court, which, was at once checked.) Unless I hive eorne doubt, I will enter sanction an appeal, more especially in a case of this kind. Mr. Bonney : Your lord, hip goes judgment for the plaintiff, with costa, including the shorthand writer'a notes? Mr. Baron Huhdleston With costs, but not the shorthand writer'. notea ; they were not necessary. Judgment With coats In the one.. was then entered for the 'Wenn.