preventing him from personally attending to his said business, he would have made. He has also incurred large expenses in medical attendance, nursing, and otherwise during his illness. The plaintiff claims £1000.

Action against Railway Company for Injuries by Collision caused through Negligence.

1. The defendants are carriers of passengers upon a railway Claim from Victoria station, London, to Balham.

against railway

2. In January, 1876, the plaintiff was received by the defen- company dants as a second-class passenger holding a season ticket, to for injuries. be by them safely and securely carried for reward in an express train which started from Victoria station for Balham.

3. Owing to the negligence of the defendants in the management of their railway line and of the trains and engines running thereon, the express train in which the plaintiff was travelling from Victoria station to Balham aforesaid ran into or otherwise came into collision with an engine at a short distance from Victoria station.

4. The plaintiff was thrown from his seat by the said collision, and much injured about the head and face, and had his left arm broken.

The plaintiff claims:

Action for Injury caused by Negligence of Defendants'

Servants.

1. On the evening of November 6th, 1875, the plaintiff was lawfully proceeding by the usual path to enter the station of the defendants, at I., in the county of Derby, for the purpose of taking his ticket and proceeding by a train of the defendants

then about to start.

2. In order to reach the defendants' offices and platform it was necessary for him to cross a certain unprotected siding of the defendants.

3. While the plaintiff was so crossing the said siding he was knocked down by an engine in charge of the defendants' servants. His arm and leg were cut off, and he was otherwise grievously injured.

4. No warning or signal of the approach of the said engine was given. It carried no lights, and by reason of the darkness

ΙΙ

Another

claim
against a
railway
for personal
injuries.

company

Defence to claim for

personal injuries.

Claim by executor

for injuries causing

death under Lord Campbell's Act.

of the evening the plaintiff was unable to see his danger; and the injuries aforesaid were caused by the negligence of the defendants herein.

The plaintiff claims £1000 damages.

Statement of Defence.

1. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff was proceeding by the usual path to enter their station, or that it was necessary for him to cross the said siding in order to reach their offices and platform as alleged in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the statement of claim.

2. The defendants do not admit that no warning or signal of the approach of the said engine was given, or that the said engine carried no lights, or that by reason of the darkness the plaintiff was unable to see his danger as alleged in the 4th paragraph.

3. The plaintiff might and ought to have proceeded by another way to the defendants' offices and platform. If he had gone by the said other way he would not have run any risk of being injured by the said engine.

4. The said engine was proceeding cautiously at a very slow pace not exceeding two miles an hour, and carried lights in front, and immediately before its arrival at the said path by which the plaintiff was crossing the said siding, the whistle was sounded, and some of the servants shouted to the plaintiff to stand clear.

5. The plaintiff might by the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care and caution have avoided all injury from the said engine.

Action under Lord Campbell's Act by an Executor of Person killed by Negligence of the Defendants (a).

1. The plaintiffs are the executors of A. B., deceased, and the defendants are the Great Western Railway Company, and were at the time of the grievances hereinafter complained of carriers of passengers upon a railway from London to Richmond.

2. The said A. B. in his lifetime became and was received by the defendants as a passenger to be safely and securely carried by them as such carriers from London to Richmond for reward. 3. The defendants did not safely and securely carry the said

(a) As to when a person may sue under this statute, see the notes ante, p. 464.

an executor

A. B. from London to Richmond, but so negligently and un- Claim by skilfully conducted themselves in that behalf on the said journey under Lord as to cause the train in which the said A. B. was being conveyed Campbell's to run on to a wrong line of rails and come into collision with another train which was running on the said lines.

4. By reason of the said collision the carriage in which the said A. B. was travelling was broken, and he received such. injuries that he died therefrom shortly afterwards, viz., on 14th of April, 1877, and within twelve calendar months before the commencement of this action.

5. At the time of the death of the said A. B. there were surviving him C. B., his wife, and E. B. and G. B., his children, and the said C. B., E. B., and G. B. still survive.

6. The plaintiff, as the executor of the said A. B., and for the benefit of the aforesaid C. B., E. B., and G. B., according to the statute in such case made and provided, claims £500 damages.

Action against Pilot for Negligence causing Collision and Damage to Plaintiff's Barge.

Act.

pilot for

1. The plaintiff is a lighterman and owner of the sailing Claim barge "R.," and the defendant is a licensed pilot, and was at the against time of the collision hereinafter mentioned in charge of the negligence steam-ship "H."

2. At or about 5.30 p.m. on the 21st day of December last the said barge "R." was lying at anchor in Upper Erith, on the river Thames. There was no wind. The night was dark, the tide was the last quarter ebb, and the riding light of the said barge was duly exhibited and burning brightly.

3. Under these circumstances the defendant so improperly and negligently navigated the "H." that she came into violent collision with the said barge, the stem of the said steamer striking the head of the said barge with such force that the said barge filled and sank shortly after the said collision.

4. In consequence of the said negligence and want of skill on the part of the defendant in navigating the said steam-ship, the plaintiff has been put to considerable expense in raising and repairing the said barge, and has lost the use of the said barge for a considerable time.

The plaintiff claims £300 damages.

causing collision

with and damage to plaintiff's barge.

Statement

Statement of Defence.

1. The defendant admits the allegations contained in the of defence. 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the statement of claim, save in so far as it is there alleged that the riding light of the said barge was duly exhibited and burning brightly.

Contribu

gence.

2. The said barge " R.," at the time in the said statement mentioned, was at anchor in the fairway of the river Thames, but the said barge did not exhibit the usual riding light as provided by the bye-laws and regulations then in force under and by virtue of the Acts of Parliament regulating the navigation of the river Thames, nor was there any light exhibited or burning on board the said barge.

3. The defendant denies that he improperly or negligently tory negli- navigated the "H." as in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim alleged, or in any other way, and says that the said collision in the said paragraph complained of, was occasioned or contributed to by the neglect or default of the plaintiff or his servants in not exhibiting as aforesaid a light on board the said barge, or in not having taken measures to warn the defendant and those on board the "H." of the position of the said barge by hailing or otherwise, whereby the defendant was unable to make out the said barge until it was too late to avoid a collision with the said barge.

4. The defendant denies the allegations contained in the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim.

Limitation 5. At the time of the occurrences in the statement of claim of liability under Mer- mentioned, the defendant was in charge of and navigating the chant Ship-"H." as a duly licensed Trinity House pilot for the district in ping Act, 1864.

which the said collision occurred, and on his appointment as such Trinity House pilot had executed a bond for £100, conditioned as in the 372nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act provided, and the amount of pilotage payable to the defendant in respect of the voyage upon which he was then engaged, was the sum of £2 12s. 6d.

6. If the said collision occurred through any neglect, default or want of skill of the defendant (which the defendant denies), such neglect, default or want of skill, was neglect, default or want of skill within the meaning of the 373rd section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1864; and the defendant is not liable

in respect of such neglect, default or want of skill, beyond the said sum of £100, and the said sum of £2 12s. 6d.

Action against Owner of Ship for Negligence causing Collision.

several

owner of steamship for negli

1. The plaintiffs are the owners of the steam-ship "Velocity," Claim by the master and crew of the said steam-ship, and the owners of plaintiffs the cargo laden therein at the time of the collision herein- against after mentioned. The defendants are the owners of the steamship "Halby." 2. The "Velocity," a screw steam-ship of 259 gross tons gence causregister, and manned by a crew of hands all told, left London on the morning of the 20th December, 1876, bound

for Calais with a cargo.

3. About 6.20 a.m. on the same day, the wind at the time being S.E. a moderate breeze, the weather dark and rainy, and the tide-ebb of the force of about three knots an hour, the "Velocity," in the prosecution of her said voyage, was in the Tower Hope Reach, proceeding under steam at the rate of about six knots per hour, and keeping her course down the river rather to the northward of mid-channel. Her proper regulation lights were duly exhibited and burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept on board of her.

4. Under these circumstances a dim white light, which proved to be the riding light of the steam-ship " Halby," was seen by those on board the "Velocity" at the distance of about three ships' lengths, nearly ahead, but a little on the port bow withal. The helm of the "Velocity was immediately put hard-a-port, but it was impossible to clear the "Halby," and the anchor chain of the "Halby" caught the port side of the "Velocity" about the waist, inflicting such serious damage that the "Velocity" sank almost immediately.

5. The "Halby" was in fault within the true intent and meaning of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, on account of the improper condition of her riding light.

6. The aforesaid collision, and the damage consequent thereon, were solely occasioned by the neglect and improper conduct of those on board the "Halby," in neglecting to exhibit a proper riding light in accordance with the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, and in neglecting to indicate to those on board the "Velocity" the position of the "Halby."

ing collision.