Copied as seen from newspaper image. I have tried to follow exactly how the article was printed, but cannot say it is without error.
...............................................................
Lancaster Gazetter
Saturday October 4 1856
Lancaster County Court.
Saturday before J. Addison Esq. Judge.
ACTION FOR DAMAGES WARD V. CROOK
In this case a journeyman stonemason of the name of Ward sought to recover £12 damages from one Crook, on account of bodily injury sustained by means of the furious driving of the defendant. Mr. Sharp appeared for the plaintiff, and Crook was defended by Mr. Baldwin, of Clitheroe. Mr. Sharp stated the case, and having related the leading particulars of the transaction out of which the action arose, informed the court that the defendant had been convicted of furious drivin at the petty sessions and fined £5, but produced his authorities to show that, this conviction notwithstanding it was open to the defendant to proceed by civil action. He then called the plaintiff, who gave his evidence to the following effect :- Was a waller, and previous to the 21st of June last was in the service of Mr. Christopher Baynes at 22s a week and employed in the building of Ripley's Hospital. On the day named was obliged by the state of the weather to leave off work between three and four o'clock, and with others, his fellow workmen, was coming into the town, just midway between the White Cross public house and the Corporation Arms, when he heard voices calling out, and was immediately struck in the chest by the shaft of some vehicle driving by and knocked down. Did his best to get out of the way, but had no time. Was led to the Infirmary where he was kept for three weeks, and after he came out was under medical treatment. Altogether he was off work seven weeks wanting a day. Was ordered porter to drink. Was still unable to do his work as formerly - could not lift the same weights. Was not aware of what injury he had received. The defendant had not been to see him or taken any notice. - On being cross-examined by Mr. Baldwin, the witness said he was walking in the middle of the street and not on the footpath. Could not see the defendant because he came so quickly upon him. Was not aware that he was calling out at the time and pulling to one side of the road. The proceedings before the magistrates were instituted by his wife. Had no one in his company when the injury was done who had been convicted of poaching through the instrumentality of the defendant. Belonged to a club and had received 7s a week during his illness - not 9s. Was not still receiving it. Was a man occasionally employed at his calling and sometimes made a little by spouting Shakespeare in public houses. Had not instructed any one to ask for compensation. Expected the defendant would call on him. Mr. Sharp was his attorney before the magistrates. His wife might have consulted Mr. Sharp about this action. Wished Mr. Sharp to write to the defendant, but was not aware that he had done so. - In re-examination the witness said he was in the middle of the road because there was no room on the footpath. It was raining at the time, and the rain beat in his face. Had regularly contributed to his club. Had been two years in Mr. Baynes' employ, with some short intermission. - Anthony Hewitson was next called and examined by Mr. Sharp. He said he was in the same employ as the plaintiff, and was walking a little behind him in Penny Street on the 21st of June. Saw the defendant coming. He was in a gig driving at a good speed - a good long trot. He was ten or twelve yards from Ward when I first saw him. There were a good many in the streets. Heard many call out. Did not see Crook offer to stop. Saw the shaft strike Ward, Ward did his best to get out of the way. He was knocked down. We took him up, put him on some steps, and got water. Crook never stopped. Witness called out to him, and said a man should not drive in that way up the street, when the defendant said he might go to __ and drove on.- In reply to Mr. Baldwin, the witness said he did not think he should have had time to get out of the way if he had been in the plaintiff's place.- Levi Baynes, another fellow workmen was next sworn. Was with Ward, walking at his side. Saw Crook driving a gig at a long trot - as fast, indeed, as some horses would gallop. Should say there were forty people about. Crook was about twenty yards off when he saw him first. He could see the crowd. The wind was beating in witness's face. Crook never offered to pull up. Saw Ward struck. He had no time to get out of the way. Crook never pulled up at all. Witness shouted to him do so before he came up. Also called after him telling him to come and see whether the man was dead or alive. He did not. Ward seemed very ill. He was taken to the Infirmary. He could not go without help. Was present when Crook was convicted. Saw him after the hearing. He told witness he was a d__d liar and called another witness, Howson, the same and offered to fight him. - In reply to Mr. Baldwin, the witness said he was not aware that anyone who had been convicted of poaching was in company. - Thomas Howson, a weaver, was next sworn. Was coming round the corner of the street just after the affair happened. Heard Hewitson call out to Crook. "Stop, stop!" Crook made answer "Go to hell, you __." After the hearing Crook called witness out to fight and said he would wring his nose - told him he could not do it.- Mr. Harker, the House Surgeon of the Infirmary, said that the plaintiff had suffered severe injury, having had the cartilage which connected the breast bone with the ribs broken. Could not do the work he had been accustomed to, though ultimately he would be able. Of course he would not recover so rapidly as if he were a younger man. - In reply to Mr. Baldwin, the witness said there was no actual fracture of the ribs.- This closed the plaintiff's case and Mr. Baldwin adressed the court. He said he did not of course deny that the injury had been sustained, but his defence was that it was owing to the plaintiff's own neglignece ; inasmuch as he was walking in the middle of the street, and ought therefore to have kept a proper look out. It was not a case of coming round a corner. The defendant was seen 20 yards ahead and it was clear, therefore, that if Ward had exercised the same degree of caution as his fellow workmen, the injury would not have been done. The summons imputed "furious driving," but there was no evidence whatever of that. He was not inciting the horse and all the witnesses could say was that he was going at a long trot. If he was coming behind the plaintiff he might have been culpable, but under the circumstances of the case submitted that he was not. With regard to these proceedings, he understood that the defendant had lately been instrumental in putting a stop to poaching in the neighbourhood. He inferred thence that the course pursued towards his client was of a vindictive character. It would be observed that compensation was never asked for. The defendant was at once prosecuted before the magistrates and convicted and now he was summoned for damages. He (Mr. Baldwin) was instructed by Mr. Starkie, the master of the defendant, and that gentleman had done so because he was impressed with the conviction that the proceedings were such as he described them. The defence was that at the time of the accident the defendant was where he ought to have been, and the plaintiff where he ought not to have been and that he did not use ordinary caution in keeping out of danger. He had brought the injury on himself, and must take the consequences. But supporting the court should be of opinion that the case was established, then in mitigation of damages, he would submit that the plaintiff was not a man in regular employ, but eked out an uncertain living by spouting at public-houses, and that during his illness he received 7s a week from his club. Then the case of furious driving had entirely failed, and on the whole he submitted that the smallest amount of damages would meet the justice of the case.- His Honour, after observing that the bringing of the action, in addition to the conviction, was not usual, though it was legal, said the defendant was not justified in driving at the rate spoken to through a crowd of persons, nor could he admit that after receiving the injury the plaintiff had received any compensation through his club, inasmuch as he himself paid weekly to the support of the club. On the whole, he thought the plaintiff entitled to £10 damages, and that sum he should award, with costs.- On application from Mr. Baldwin, His Honor ruled that the damages should be paid monthly at the rate of 10s a month.
............................................................................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment