THE LAW'S DELAYS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XVII, Issue 295, 18 December 1882, Page 2

THE LAW'S DELAYS.

* . ; ' An action, J out of which eight separate trials have arisen, has been engaging the legal profession m London since 1878. It appears that uMr Smither- ; man los.t his life by baing run over by ' an engine and tender of the South-

Eastern Railway Company, which dashed through a station as he was crossing the lino to get to his train. The widow sued the railway company for damages, and obtained a verdict for £000. There was an application or a new trial, on the ground that sufficient attention had not been given to the question of " contributory negligence," and the Divisional Court, constituted by Mr Baron Pollock and Mr Baron Huddleston, set the verdict aside. The Court of Appeal, however, set aside tlua decision, and upheld the jßrfliot. There was then an appeal to "the Bouse of Lords, wheii three Law Lords reversed this decision and directed a new trial, m order that attention might bo more particularly given to the question of contributory negligence. The case was accordingly tried again, and it was tried before Mr Baron Pollock (one of the two judges who originally directed a new trial) at the Guildhall Sittings, Dec, 188 L, The jury retarned this verdict : "We find for the plaintiff; we consider that both parties were m fault, but that there was more responsibility on the Company than on deceased, and greater fault." The judge considered this a verdict for the plaintiff, and gaye judgment accordingly. The Company applied for a third trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence ; but the Divisional Court refused the application, and on appeal the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. \n application to enter the verdict for the Company, on the ground that the findings of the jury really amounted to a verdict for them, also came before the Court of Appeal, and was likewise dismissed, whereupon Mr Grantham, on the part of the Company,' asked for a stay ; of execution, pending an appeal to the House of Lords, but Lord Coleridge did not accede to the application. The Company, however," have succeeded m obtaining an order for Btay of proceedings, pending their appeal to the House of Lords, and they are now exercising that right of appeal.