480 APPENDIX. 



plaintifl' from his seat to the road, wheu he received such in- 

 juries as " imsensed him" and rendered it necessary that he 

 should be taken to a neighbouring Chymist. From that 

 time to the present the plaintitf had continued to suffer much 

 from lameness, caused by the fall, and his business had 

 diminished through his inability to attend to it as heretofore. 

 It further appeared that when the accident occurred the 

 defendant's son laid the blame on the improper site chosen 

 for the gas-lamp by the authorities, and that the defendant, on 

 being applied to for compensation by the plaintiff, offered to 

 repair the cart, but refused to pay anything for the personal 

 injury received bj^ the plaintiff. 



For the defendant witnesses were called to prove that the 

 coach was going at its usual pace into Aylsham, and that the 

 gas-lamp was so improperly placed as to prevent any one 

 from seeing beyond it, and that the coach had just passed it 

 when a shout arose, which was immediately followed by a 

 collision, the coach being then somewhere about the middle of 

 the road. That the driver was a very steady man, and that 

 in consequence of this accident the lamp had been removed to 

 a more suitable site ; and that every attention was paid by 

 the driver to the plaintiff. 



The Juiy found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 30/. 



BOWDEN V. Shermais'. 

 Before Lord Campbell, C. J., Guildhall, July 2, 1853. 

 James, Q.O., and Phinn, for the plaintiff. 

 Wilkins, Serjt., and Willes, for the defendant. 

 Negligent This was an action on the Case to recover compensation for 



diiving at a injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the negligent 

 ~ "" driving of the defendant's Servant. 



It appeared that about two o'clock in the afternoon of the 

 22nd of October the plaintiff, who was sixty years of age, was 

 in the Hampstead lioad, near Southampton Street. It was 

 raining at the time, and she had her umbrella up. According 

 to her statement, she looked up Southampton Street, and 

 seeing nothing coming, she proceeded to cross the street, but 

 while doing so she was knocked down by the shaft of a Cart 

 driven by one of the defendant's Servants. The defendant 

 was a carrier, but he had, in fact, sold his carrying business 

 to the Great Western Eailway Company. The driver was not 

 by the side of his Horse, but was in the Cart, driving the 

 Horse with reins. The plaintiff was immediately assisted by 

 the bystanders, and carried into the surgery of a neighbouring 

 surgeon, where she was attended to. She was then taken 

 home and confined to her bed for six weeks. During this 



crossing. 



