« 上一頁繼續 »
Assault lost the benefit of a lucrative and profitable contract, which committed he would have secured had he not been so prevented as by railway servants.
5. By reason of the removal and ejection of the plaintiff from the defendants' premises as mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, and the assaults and beatings inflicted on him as aforesaid, the plaintiff was seriously hurt, damaged, and bruised, and he suffered great pain and anguish of body and mind, and his reputation and position were injured by reason of the affronts and indignities to which he was thus subjected.
6. The plaîntiff also lost the price paid by him for the said railway ticket.
The plaintiff claims :
the 4th paragraph.
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendants deny that the plaintiff was lawfully on their premises as alleged in the 2nd paragraph of the statement of claim, and that he purchased a ticket as therein is alleged.
2. Assuming that the plaintiff had purchased such ticket, the defendants say that at the time of their servant seizing the plaintiff as alleged in the said paragraph, the train therein referred to was in motion, and proceeding on the journey, and the defendants' servant, acting in accordance with their bye-laws in that behalf, forcibly but without unnecessary violence, prevented the plaintiff from attempting to enter the said carriage after the said train began to move.
3. As to the allegations in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim, the defendants say, that before and at the time of the removal and ejection therein mentioned, the plaintiff was behaving in a violent and disorderly manner, and was apparently under the influence of drink, and it was the duty of the defendants and their servants to remove and eject him from their said premises.
Removal by reason of disorderly conduct.
4. As to the assaults and beatings referred to in the said 3rd paragraph, the defendants deny that their said servants 80 beat and assaulted the plaintiff, and say that they only used so much force as and no more than was necessary for the purpose of so removing and ejecting the plaintiff from the premises.
Assault by a schoolmaster upon a pupil.
Assault by a Schoolmaster upon a Pupil. 1. The plaintiff is an infant.
2. The defendant is head master of the H. Grammarschool.
3. During the month of January, 1874, the plaintiff was a pupil at the said school, and on the 15th of January aforesaid, the defendant made a violent assault upon the plaintiff, and severely beat him about the face and head and back with a thick stick
4. In consequence of the premises, the plaintiff was much bruised and injured, and was for several weeks sick and ill, and confined to his bed, and endured much pain and suffering.
The plaintiff claims £200 damages.
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant is not the head master of the H. Grammar- Defence of school. At all times material to this pleading, he was and lawful still is head master of the English department in the said ment for school.
duct. 2. On the said 15th of January, 1874, the plaintiff was a pupil under the defendant's charge and control, and while under such charge and control, he was guilty of gross impertinence towards the defendant, and of such insubordination as rendered it necessary for the preservation of the discipline of the school that the plaintiff should be punished. 3. Thereupon, the defendant moderately, and using no more Lawful
chastiseviolence than was necessary, chastised the plaintiff with a birch rod, which is the grievance complained of.
4. Save as aforesaid, the defendant denies each and every the allegations contained in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim.
5. The defendant does not admit the 4th paragraph thereof.
Indecently assaulting a female prisoner by constable and surgeon.
Action for Indecently Assaulting a Female. 1. The plaintiff is a single woman, residing at, &c.
2. The defendant E. C. is the chief constable of the borough of F. ; and the defendant E. W. is a doctor of medicine practising at F. aforesaid.
3. On the 11th of June, 1876, the plaintiff was arrested on a warrant, on a charge of concealing the birth of her infant child, and was conveyed to the F. prison.
4. On the same day, the defendant E. W., acting by the orders and directions of the defendant E. C., indecently assaulted the plaintiff, and against her will made an examination of her person, with the professed object of ascertaining whether she had recently been delivered of a child.
The plaintiff claims £100 damages.
Defence of the Defendant E. C. 1. This defendant denies that the defendant E. W. made an indecent or any assault upon the plaintiff as alleged, or otherwise.
2. This defendant further says that if the defendant E. W. did make an indecent assault upon the plaintiff, the said E. W. did not act by the orders and directions of the defendant, but contrary thereto.
Defence of the Defendant E. W. Defence, This defendant denies the allegations contained in the 4th that examination at
paragraph of the statement of claim. He says that, on the request of 11th of June, 1876, he visited the F. prison to see the plaintiti plaintiff.
at her express wish, and she then requested him to make an examination of her person in order that he might be able at her trial to give evidence in her favour ; and this defendant thereupon, with the plaintiff's consent and not otherwise, made the said examination, which is the grievance complained of.
See Chose in Action-Bankrupt.
Action against Shipowner for not preparing a proper Average
Statement, whereby the Plaintiff lost the Value of Goods
1. The defendants are owners of the “A.,” which sailed Against from C. for L. on the 24th June, 1873, carrying a general shipowner cargo, including the case of musk hereinafter mentioned, of preparing the value of £183 78. 6d.
proper 2. The plaintiffs were indorsees of the bill of lading and statement. owners of the said case of musk, which was consigned to them by the shippers, Messrs. G. & Co., of Calcutta.
3. The “A.” while in the Red Sea was in imminent danger of being lost through perils of the sea, and it became necessary to jettison the said case of musk and other cargo, and the same was thereupon jettisoned in order to preserve the vessel, her cargo, and the whole adventure from imminent danger. A general average loss was thereby incurred in respect of which general average contribution became due to the plaintiffs from the defendants, and from the owners of the residue of the cargo.
4. The defendants, as owners of the “ A.," agreed with the plaintiffs, for sufficient consideration in that behalf, and it
Against became and was their duty, as owners of the “A.,” in conshipowner formity with usage, to give notice to the plaintiffs or the shippreparing pers of the said case of musk of the said jettison, and to a proper collect the said general average contribution, and to detain the average statement. cargo in respect of which the same became payable until the
same should be paid; also to pay the said contribution over to the plaintiffs when collected, and to cause to be prepared a proper and careful average statement, and furnish the same to the plaintiffs.
5. The defendants did not prepare such careful and proper average statement, nor furnish the same to the plaintiffs, nor did they give notice to the plaintiffs or the said shippers that the said case had been jettisoned, nor did they collect the average contribution due to the plaintiffs, nor detain the cargo in respect of which the same became payable, nor pay the said contribution over to the plaintiffs, nor any part thereof.
6. By reason of the premises the plaintiffs remained ignorant that the said case of musk had been jettisoned as aforesaid, and lost the said general average contribution.
The plaintiffs claim :-
the 24th November, 1874, at £5 per cent. per annum.
Action for average.
Action for average on Sale of wrecked Cargo. 1. The plaintiff is a merchant, carrying on business in London. The defendant is a shipowner, carrying on business at - in Germany.
2. In the month of June, 1876, the plaintiff shipped on board the defendant's ship, the “H.," in London, certain goods, consisting of tin, iron, and other things, to be carried to East London. The said ship, with the said goods on board, was subsequently wrecked at East London, and the wreck and such of the cargo as was saved, including the plaintiff's said cargo, was sold by auction by the direction of the master, and the defendant subsequently received the proceeds of the said sale, amounting to £- on account of the persons entitled thereto.
3. The average statement was afterwards duly prepared, under the direction of the plaintiff or his agents, by which the