York, Friday, August 13.
Bfjore Mr. JusIice B3AYLEYZ.l a Caon2n2o, .anr,,. mur. n5NOWLES opened the pleadings. Thetdeclaration stated that the defendants were the proprietors of a stage-coach called the True Britott that for a certain sum of money they had contracted to take the platntitt from Oldham to Leeds as a passenger on the outside of theit coachl, and that tharcoach Iad been overturited on the road, in conse- quence of themisconduct and wantof care ofthedefendar,t'scoachman, wvhereby the plaintiff had been seriously hurt and injured. Thede. fendants pleaded that they were not guilty, and that was the is'ue thejury had to try. iMlr. SCAULETLE stated the case to the jtry, and caUed a multi. pllcity of witnesses to prove it. From their testimony, it appeared, that In the ceurse uf the last year the plaintifi; Williams, was gong with his wife and child to visit his wife's sister at Robertstown, in the neighbourhood of Lteeds, previuusly to his setting up in business n thattown as a loth-dresscr. Between Oldham anti Leeds tsvo coaches run I, opposition to each other, of which one is called the Umpire, and tie other the Trrue Briton. I'he plaintiff had taken places to Robertstown on the outside of the former coaeh for himn self, his wife, attd his child; but in consequettce of some misrepre- sentation mrade by the coachman of the latter coach, which on that day started first frot Oldham, had afterwards determined to trans- fer him4elf and fanily to the place of his destination by the'True Briton. The True Briton ptoceeded froimi Oldhani to Delf at a quick pace, but with due caution. At Delf the UJmpire came up to it as it was cliatiging horses, and frotn that littne till its arrivai in lIuddersfield, its journey wsw conducted at a very rapid atid turious rate. In short the two coaches raced against each1 ottier all the way, and went up and down the ltills on the road, which are both steep andt i0umnmrous at fall allop. In goiilg u the hill which overlooks the town of huddershelo, the horses of the True Briton were so much exhausted by their previous exertion_ tltat they came to a dead stop. lVhilst they were in that situation the UBpire coach ran rapidlv past them. The coachman of tJie 1'rue Brito m was so muci irritated by this circumestance, that he jumped off his coach-box on to the ground, and whipped his horses witlh great severity. At the top of the hill he again miounted the coach-box, and by severe flogging again forced them into a gaUop. Instead, however, of driving by the usual road into the riarket-place ol' liuddersfield, he selecte4 another, which was nearer, but hiat a greater descent, and two or three very sharp turns in it. At the time when hecamctotheco-nerofthestreetwhici leads into the marktet: place, he was driving at the rate of 12 miles an houraccordingto some, and of 8 miles an hour accordinig to others, of the witnesses. Instead of giving his horses an opportunity of turning the corner Klowly by pulling them up, lie drore on with the sanie rapidity ; and the result was, that from want of proper caution on his part,the toach was upset, and the plaintilf and his wife and child were all severely injured. 'I-he proprielors ot'the coach, on learnittg the accident, de- sired that all the suffecrers by it should be taken into the Wo9lpack itin, and should be supplied with nmedical assistance at their ex- pease. Amongst these sufft rers were the plaintiff. his wife, and his child. He receivel several bruises on his face, side, and back, which, though they were unattended bv any fracture or dislocatron of limb, made him lame for 13 or 14 weeks, and preventea hint fromn carrying on hii business, by which he had bcen rn thle labit of gain. ing front 30s. to 40s. a-week. His child also received much hurt, though not ofapermanent nature. His wifewas the mostutfortunate person of the whole party; for she was so nluch bruised, that those who saw her immediately after the accident despaired of her recovery. The surgeon who attended her on that occasion deposed tbat her hip. bone was fractured, and her elbow grazed, by the upsetting of the coach, whilst another surgeon, who had attended her recently, said that one of her legs had been rendered shorter by it than the otbers that her elbow had been dislocated by it, and was not yet reduced ; and that it was very doubtful whether she would ever so far recover from these injuries as to be capable of adding to the earnings of her husband as she before liad done, and of transacting the dotnestic du- ties which are expected frtom every mother of a family. The clerk to the Afagistrats at fluddersfield wa'; put into the witness.box to prove that the coachnman of the Tine Briton had been fined 101. for the furious rate at which he had driven upon this occa ston; and several other witnesses proved that they had been alarmed by the rapid pace at which the coach bt passed them ast before it was upset. The ptaitutiff vaulti have caled all his fellow- passengers to support his case if he had been able to obtain their names and places of residesnce; but he waS prevented from doir,g so by tbe defendants reftsing to furnish him wllb A copy f the way.bUl on the day in question, or viith any other hifornistion on the 8ubject. Under these lrctuistences, Mr. Scarlett contended, that as the proprietors of a coach were an- fwerable for the negligence and miscondhuct of their servant, and as the Injurie.; whiica the plaintiff had received had accrued to him from the overturning of the coach, owing to tbe want of skill or caution on the part of their servant, the coachman, the jury mugt find a verdict for his client, with damages proportioned to the in- juries which they believed him to have sustained. He would not asik them at present for damages for the injuries done to his wife and child, as they would lform the subject of separate actions. * After the case fbr the plaintiff had been concluded, iJr. BRouGHAar, for the defendants, contentdea, tbat upon the case so; it then stood, the plaintiff must be nonsuited. The con tract was not proved, as it had been s get outc in the declara. tion. The declaration stated that the proprietors of the coach had contracted to take the plaintiff a-nd his family na outaide passengerg to Leeds' the proof was, that they were ortly going as far as Roberts. town, mud had not contracted to go further. A witness was recalled, whoproved that the. plaintifF intended to F? to Robertstewn first, anTd aakeTiwards to Leeds. und that the first place was on the direct road from Oldhamn to the latter. * Mv. 3ustice BAYL.EY.-What havc JO to say to tbis, lUr. LAIr. BBsO UG rtAa any, mly Lord, that tlec terminu.r ad quein is Leeds. My objection is not as to the intention of the plaintiff, but aOsi tothe defciency of proof Of the contract as set forth in the de. Mr. Justice B13LreY was of npinion that there vwas nothing in the objection. He would leave it to the jury whether the parties were or were not going to Rc.bertstown and L.eeds. lllr. BstotrUsAs then submitted that there was no evidence of the plairiff'bhaving hti*ed the defentdant's coach. 31.Jueticc BALE was of azcontrary opitnlon; bat sald that to put - an 6a to 41st blmbtf w1 4}*tM.tsT+1o3 With regard to clirst , tim4eff when the oc wsupstet. It wbdA taii thae*4;itj lie ad beeln I *Ofo it bad;lsMat inng;had that FiClf tbu driing lfitsd*i8 keI pisd,tg had taken place previously to his enternng Ituidersfleld, -and biihit therefore never tohsve been intrwduced at allss evidnce irthe casie. It was as nich the duty s the interest of a coachnian to drive his horses cautiously ifirst, hecause they weie theproperoyby which be gained hisissbsistence 'and, scoatUt , becaisede endangerd his owin life and limb ns mnuch as the life ardla llnib df any af his passenget4, by careless driving. 'that al the i ird driving had ceased before the coacimsan entered Hucdersaleld *as proved by this tir. cumsance,-that the horses had been beaten to a standstill belore they arrived at that place; Hlow then co4ld this accident have hap. pened in consequence of thelr going at the rate of 1 miles an hours one of the witnesses hbad deposed, on their entetingthe town of hud. dersfield ? It was said, however, that it had hcappened in eonse. quence of the coachman having preferred to go by a near and a nar. row road to.the aiarket.plate, instead of going by the elear andusuai road. He had, thowever, estracted fross the witnesses in oross.ca. mination that orie road was quite as good as the other, and was gone over indiaerently by both coaclesi He natntaniied that the plaintiff's witnesses had groasly exaggerated the lpeed of the coach. mat)'a entty into laddetettield, and sad that it was impro. bable that any man, who was in equal danger with the rest of the pastengers,should have been mad enough to turn a narrow comer at fuli garlop, as had been deposed by the plaintiff 'a witnesses: he therefore was of opinion that the verdict ought to be for the defendants. If, however, the jurY should think differently upon that poi at, then he would teU them that very trifling damages would meet tbie justice of the case, which, in spite of the exaggeration with which the plaintiff's counsel haA opened itX contained no circum-. stances of aggravation whatever, Thl'ey must in the frst place put out of theit consideration any injuries which had been done to the wJife and child, since they would forns the siubjects of separate actions. Why Any mention had been made of those ixi)uries, on the present occasion he could not tellI unless, indeed5 it were with a view of letting thie plaintiif turn this accident into a source of lucre I and emolument to himself. His clients regretted the accident which hbai happened as much as men could do; they gave the plaintiff full benefit of pity and commiseration ; they had given hi-m morec they had supplied him with the best advice they could find in the neighbourhoou; and yet now, not satisfied with bare compassion and barren sympathy, he endeavoured to torn his misadventure into a piece of good fortune, by instrueting his learned friend to inflatae the minds o. a jury ngainst the dcfenants, by every species of cxag. geration and misstatement. Now he would endeavour to mitigate the infla2mmation which his learned friend had excitea in their mninds by reminding thin that th, bruiser which the plaintiff hatd received vere to slight as to be cured by a single embrocation- for which the defendants were charged, and for which the plaintifF had never paid, and would never have to pay, a silgle ftrthing. Let them consider that circumstance. and then give heavy damages if they could. Let them likewise ionaider, that in all cases like the present, the passengers were quite as much to blame as the coach man. All travellers hated a slow passage: there was even prool in the cause, that the plaintiT after he had taken places in the Umpire, had determined to go by the Trme Briton, fot no other reason than because it was the fleetest traveller on the road he was going. Whilst the opposition coach was not in sight of the true Briton every body admitted that the coachman drove slowly, cautiously, and steadily it was only aftet the Umpire came in sight that he increased his pbace and drove with the rapidity which was now complained of. I as not likely that such an increase of speed had been occasloned by the mixture of cheers, and taunts, and exhortsations, which passengers were never slow in using to coachmen on such occasions? It was in evidence that one of the passengers-perhaps the plaintiff-had said, "'1hy, coachee, here's the Umpire comingon," What was tle ex- clamationmost likelytogreet the coahiman't ears after that? Was it not something of this kind-" Don't let thie Urnpire pass by us coachlee ?" Nay, some gentleman who might not like to give baQ advice, though he miglht have no objection to see it follo7'sx, Might give powerful note of exhlortation to the coachman, withiout saying sdingle wotd, and only by brandishing a small piece of coin between his finger and thumb before the dazzledl eyes of theaforesaid coachee. eed e tell them what would be the result of such a negotiation ? [le was sure that they all naw In their mind's eye the prite of the coachman, the excitation of the passengers, the teal of the guard and the flogging of the horses. *' The True Briton for ever" would be the common chorus of guard, coachman, passengers, and horses, and every obstruction would be disregarded in their eagerness to ar. rive first at their place of destination. he therefore trusted that they would leave out of their consideration tie exaggerated state. ments of his learned friends, and if thlev should give a verdict to the plaintifi, wouldl not forget those topics of mitigation which not only their knowledge of the world, but what was more material on this occasion, their knowledge of the road, would be sure to suggest to men of their intelligence and experience, With these observations, lie should leave the case in their hands, being qalte satisied that they would administer equal justice between the parties to the pre- nent action. AMr. Justice BAYLEY lihd commenced his address to the jury, by telling tdiem, that in considering this case, they must lay oat of their consideration the injury done to the plaintiff s wife and child, and was proceeding to make soie further remarks, when he was inter- rupted by U1r. BRtOUGHAM, Who Blsad that lie had no objection to allow the Ty to consider upon this occaion the injury done to the plaintiff is wife, anti child, provided the othier actlons were not brought, or if brought, were discontinued. AlMr. SCARLETT said, that his client had no objection to such a proceeding, andl that he consented to I)r. Broughamn's proposal, in order to get rid of all fuiture litigztitdo, Mfr. Justice BALVLEY then proceeded to tell the Jury, that by consent of the parties, they might now inquire inlto the injuries sus- tamred by every member of the plaintiff's family, and minht gye such damages for them as they tlought iust5 suppoting t ttthey were convinced that the overturisof the cets wms W tctasionmd either by the negligelit or unsl;ilful dtiving of tie cdach-. man. it hhd been a fited in the cotirse of the argument of the learned counsel for tdefene, that the coachman might have been instigatedl by the passeirgers to drive in the rapid manner which some of' tie witnesses had deposed to. Such a suggestion was no excuse for the coachman, He would tell theum what it was theduty of a coachman to do under such circumstances, He otight to tell his passengers that he could -not yield to theiv eoltttlon s.-frst, on account of the duty whidh he owed to his masters, whose property was intrusted to his protection-and next, on account of the regard which he owed to the safety of his passengers, who were equally placed under his rareand vigilance, The lcarned Judge, after mak- ing several observations on the evidence, told the Jury to consider of thieir verdict. The Jurv returned a verdictfor the plaintifE-Damages 2001. Mr. Julee BrALErV.-Oentlemtn, I think that you have found a very useful verdict. did not say bO before, because It would have been unconstitutional for me to do so ; but it is -ery much the in- terest of the public to discourage this fironas driving on the part of coachmen anr coach proprietors. CPtrt5ttNAL 8ID'g. The two burglars who were convicted and seistenced to death on Tuesday last, were respited till next November, by Atr. Baton iIuL- toci; before he left York. The learned Judge, though he over- ruled in Court the objection which Mr. AtEXAN1UES: took to the indictment, has since intimated, tha'I ethilnes that it ought to be referred to the cQnsideratidn of the 2 udges. 'the men. Wio since tbeir condtefsnation hare been very contrite and scemingfy resigntd to their fate, have not as yet been informed of the respite which has been aranted to them. _ VORK- InTTrv A--- 1 - WILLIAMS V. CLEGGE AWD ANOTFP.