Children of William and Rachel Hughesdon

822. GEORGE LANCASTER was indicted for stealing, on the 15th of January, 1 bag, value 2d.; 6 sovereigns, 1 half-sovereign, and 2 shillings; the property of William Hughesdon, his master.

WILLIAM HUGHESDON. I am a smith and brass-founder, and live in Butcher-row, Deptford—the prisoner was in my service for upwards of four years. On Saturday, the 15th of January, I was at the Compasses public-house, and a little after nine o'clock I delivered to him six sovereigns and two shillings, and then gave him a half-sovereign to give to my daughter. I gave him a sample bag, counted the money over to him, and he put it into the bag. I told him to go home to my house, and get Mr. Ward's bill, and pay it, 6l. 1s. 9d., and leave a half-sovereign at home for my daughter. I saw no more of him till the Wednesday morning following, when I came down stairs, he was sitting in the kitchen. I said to him, "You scoundrel, get out of my place," and he went. I gave information, and that evening he was taken.

MARY ANN HUGHESDON. I am the prosecutor's daughter. The prisoner came to the house about ten o'clock on the 15th of January, and I gave him the bill, and the note of the men's wages, which was left with me—when I gave him the note, he said I was to send for all I wanted out of the money I had got. I had got 1l. 19s. of my own—he said it as if it was a message—he did not complain of losing any money—the men are paid at Ward's public-house—the note contains the particulars of what is to be paid to the men—my father keeps three men—the bill was not receipted as it is now when I gave it to the prisoner.

1836-01-26

Frightful and Fatal Occurrence.—On Friday, Mr. Cartar, the coroner, held an inquest at the Druid's Arms, Straitsmouth, Greenwich, on the body of Mr. William Hughesdon, aged 42, of 22, New King-street, Deptford. On the 24th ult., deceased and his wife were proceeding towards Limehouse, and were crossing a thoroughfare near George's Stairs, Grove-lane, across which thoroughfare there is a tramway, leading to the Commercial Docks, and on which trucks are employed (the tramway being an incline from the river-side) to convey bricks. Just as the deceased and his wife were crossing, one of the trucks came running along, the brakesman of which swore that he called out to the deceased, who, it appears, succeeded in thrusting his wife back, but was himself struck on the left arm, being forced along a considerable distance, and when picked up, the left arm was found to be broken below the elbow, and the hand, being almost entirely severed, merely hanging by a piece of skin. He was at once conveyed on board the "Dreadnought," where the limb was amputated. He went on apparently well until a few days before his death, when mortification supervened, and death took place on Monday last. A post mortem examination was made by Mr. Rooke, resident surgeon on board the "Dreadnought," who deposed to the injuries received being the immediate cause of death. There was some conflicting evidence as to whether the deceased was not off the footpath at the time of the accident, and the jury merely returned a verdict that death took place in consequence of being struck by a truck.

HUGHESDON v. KELP—NEGLIGENCE.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Prentice appeared for the plaintiff; Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Lush for the defendant.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as the executrix of her husband, against the defendant, the contractor for building some works near Deptford for the Commercial Dock Company, to recover compensation in damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the death of her husband, which was alleged to have occurred by the negligence of the defendant's servants.

It appeared that, as the plaintiff and her husband were crossing a tramway which passed over the public footway near Deptford, a truck, which was propelled by its own weight down an incline, ran against them. They were knocked down, and Mr. Hughesdon, being severely injured was carried to the Dreadnought, hospital-ship, where it was found necessary to amputate his arm, and he had since died from the effect of the injuries which he had sustained. He had been in the habit of earning 30s. a-week, and had left the plaintiff a widow with six children.

The case for the defence was, that the accident was caused through the negligence of the plaintiff and her husband, they having left the public footpath, and standing on the defendant's premises on the tramway, where the man was seen pointing with his hand to something on the works, when several persons called out to them that the truck was coming, but they took no notice and the truck ran over him.

Witnesses having been called in support of the defence,

Lord Campbell, in summing up, left it to the jury to say to which side they gave credence.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 330l., apportioning 150l. to the widow, and 30l. to each child.