218 WHERE PURSUER DIES AFTER RAISING AN ACTION. 



right to sue, but may be proA^ed by the defender in miti- 

 gation of damages. Thus in an action of damages at the 

 instance of an adult son against the proprietor of a coach by 

 which his father, an old man on the poor's roll, was driven 

 over and killed, Lord President Boyle in charging the jury 

 said : — " You have been told that this man was in great 

 poverty indeed, that he Avas actually on the poor's roll ; but 

 the pursuer is not less entitled to a solatium for his wounded 

 feelings although he may not be able to show any pecuniary 

 loss through his father's death." (cc) Damages for death or 

 personal injury are not to suffer diminution on account of 

 sums received or to be received by the injured party or his 

 representatives from a friendly society, or under a policy of 

 insurance ; (b) but " a jury may take into account provisions 

 made by a deceased in favour of a widow, where these are settled 

 directly upon her ; but where they are provided by a policy 

 on the husband's life in the wife's favour, the amount is not to 

 be deducted from the damages assessed, because the benefit 

 derived from the acceleration of the payment may be com- 

 pensated by deducting from their estimate of the future earn- 

 ings of the deceased the premiums he would have had to 

 pay had he lived to keep up the premium."(c) 



(B.) Where the pursuer dies after raising an action. 

 — The further consideration of shortening of life is an 

 element to be considered. A lad of sixteen, earning twelve 

 shillings and sixpence a-week, received injuries on a railway 

 and died seven months afterwards from the effects of the 

 accident. He had previously brought an action of damages 

 against the railway company, and after his death his father 

 was sisted as pursuer in his place. A verdict of £400 was 



[a) Elder v. Croall, 1849, 11 D. 1040 ; see also Broivn v. M'Greyor, 1813, F.C; 

 cited in Richmond v. Russell, 1849, 11 D. 1038 ; Brash v. Steele, 1845, 7 D. 539; 

 diligence allowed to recover documents to prove that a deceased did not support 

 his family who averred deprivation of parental care and support. 



(i) Iliclcs V. N., ttc, Ry. Co., 1857, 4 B. and S. 403, n ; Bradhurn v. G. W. Ri/. 

 Co., 1874, L.R. 10 Ex. 1 ; Yates v. White, 1838, 4 Bing. N.C. 272. 



(c) Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Jennings, 1888, L.R. 13 App. Ca, 800. 



