An action brought to recover £40 damages resulting to plaintiff, a farmer of Oakley, through the death of a horse, which he alleged to be caused by the negligent driving of the defendant of Rushden, near Higham Ferrers. Mr. Stimpson appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Sharman for defendant.

Mr. Stimpson, in opening the case, said the claim was brought in consequence of the loss sustained by plaintiff in the death of a horse killed through the negligence of the defendant in driving on the 17^th of November last. The plaintiff, riding from Oakley, was nearing the Horse and Groom, in front of which were standing two carts on private ground, leaving the road quite clear when he saw the defendant coming in a cart; to keep clear of the defendant he went from the left side of the road to shelter himself behind the carts and in doing so, turned the horse’s head towards the house; defendant notwithstanding, came close up to the cart and ran his shaft into the hips of Mr. Hine’s horse, a circumstance which could not be accounted for in any other way that that the defendant was tipsy. One discreditable fact was that the defendant drove off without saying anything about it; and the plaintiff would not have known who had done it, but a man named Ruffhead, who saw him go by knew him and said who it was. It might be said that the plaintiff was on the wrong side of the road; but the horse was not on the road at all but on the path – private ground of the Horse and Groom, and it would be seen that the plaintiff did all he could to avoid collision.

George Hine, farmer, Oakley; On the 17^th of November last I left home bout half past two, on my way to Bedford. I called at Mr. Jordan’s blacksmith shop and then went on the road. I saw two carts in front of the Horse and Groom; one of the carts had pigs in it. Before I got to the carts I saw defendant coming a long the road, driving a heavy spring cart; no-one was with him. He sat in a funny way and was driving at the rate of about eleven miles an hour. I saw him when he was a good many yards beyond the first cart. When opposite the gate I saw the defendant coming towards me and I turned my horse’s head round, behind the carts with the fore legs on the path. I said “For God’s sake pull up or you will be into me.” Defendant, in going past, made the shaft come into the horse’s hips. I fell over his head on my back against the gates. He never stopped to speak to me; I went to the Landlord of the Horse and Groom and saw Ruffhead; Ruffhead told me who the defendant was. I pointed out where the accident happened. I sent for the horse doctor, Darlow, whom I have employed ten or twelve years; the horse was taken home and it died a fortnight afterwards. It was sent to the Oakley Kennels. I wrote to defendant about it but he did not answer.

Cross examined: the horse was standing still between the carts. I was asked what should I do and I said I did not know. I never said a five pound note would settle it.

Ebenezer Jordan, blacksmith, Clapham, said Mr. Hine called t his shop a little after three on the 17^th November. Mr. Hine went towards Bedford. Saw two carts stand in front of the Horse and Groom; it stands back from the rod. The path in front of the public house if five yards wide and the road eight yards. Five or six minutes after the accident Mr. Hine came to me and took me to the Horse and Groom and pointed out where the accident happened. The carts were on the path, leaving the road quite clear.

Alfred Ross, of the Horse and Groom, public house, Clapham, said “On the 17^th of November, in the afternoon, Mr. Ruffhead was in his house; there were two carts in the front of the house. Mr. Hine called me out; he had the reins of his horse in his hand. The horse was bleeding and there was blood on the path. There was a trace of blood to the stable.

Cross examined: I did not see the accident. I was attending to the customers in the house. Mr. Hine said some man had run against him. Heard that he said that the horse was frightened at the pigs.

By the Judge : the first cart had the pigs in it.

James Ruffhead, Stevington, dealer, said he was at Mr. Ross’s public house on the afternoon of the 17^th November. Was standing facing the window and while standing in that position saw Mr. Laughton driving by at a goodish pace. Remarked “He is driving a good pace; I should think he wants to get home.” Saw traces of blood where the horse had been led up to the path and brought back again. Mr. Hine came in and said some one had run into him and he told him it was Mr. Laughton, of Rushden. The cart that contained the pigs was seven or eight yards of the Oakley side of the door. One cart had no pigs in.

Cross examined “My cart was just opposite the door. I saw Mr. Laughton go past. That is all I saw.

John Turlow, Clapham, farrier called            

Mr. Stimpson – how long have you been a horse doctor?

Witness – I was bred one (Laughter)

Mr. Stimpson- You mean that your father was a doctor and he learnt you your business.

Witness – Yes. On 17th November Mr. Hine came to me about his horse. I went to the Horse and Groom and I found that the horse was injured on the near side at the round bone of the hip. The shaft had gone in about eight or ten inches up to the spine of the back. I advised him to take it home. I knew if it was not taken home it would not go home in the morning. I followed it home, examined the wound and dressed it. I gave it some medicine. It lived just a fortnight and then died from the wound.

Cross examined- this witness said he did not know what paralysis was. He walked home behind the horse.

Thomas Barringer, of the kennels, Milton, recollected a horse being sent to the kennels in November last by Mr. Hine. The wound ran up the spine of the back. Mr. Stimpson – You mean it was affected up to the spine of the back.

Witness – Yes.

In reply to the judge a witness stated that the blacksmith’s shop was about 70 yards nearer Oakley and on the opposite side of the road to the Horse and Groom.

Mr. Sharman in his address to the jury for the defendant, suggested whether it was not probable that Mr. Hine, from the excitement and confusion consequent upon the accident, could not distinctly recollect how it occurred. The loss of a good horse and the annoyance it might have occasioned him might influence him in exaggerating the facts given by him in evidence. Would the jury believe the plaintiff’s account of the accident to be strictly a correct one after the evidence he (Mr. Sharman) should produce? There was no doubt that injury had been done to the horse, but to sustain the action it must be proved that it was owing to the carelessness of negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff would have them believe that he got the cart and that the defendant deliberately turned off to run into him. The defendant would say that he saw the plaintiff’s horse plunging at the pigs in the cart. Mr. Laughton pulled up and at the time the accident occurred Mr. Hine’s horse reared up and went against the shafts of Mr. Laughton’s cart. Mr. Laughton could not get out of the way of the horse because it was plunging. Mr. Hine was on the wrong side and although the rule of the road could not be followed in all cases it must be shown that the plaintiff used every endeavour to avoid an accident. He (Mr. Sharman) put it to the jury, which ought to have got out of the way the quickest? – a man driving a heavy cart at a good pace or a man simply on horseback. He contended that proper care had not been used by the plaintiff and asked for a verdict for the defendant.

Mr. Laughton, farmer, of Rushden: On the 17^th November I was driving from Bedford Fair. When I got through the Clapham toll gate I passed a gentleman’s carriage and then saw two carts in front of the Horse and Groom and Mr. Hine on his horse, which seemed “uncommonly rusty like”. It plunged. I told him to get down, but he would not.

I saw the horse bleeding and I told him to get off the horse and foment it with brandy and water as it was a very cold day. The wound did not look very bad. Mr. Hine was in the middle of the road at the first and he pulled him on the right. If he had pulled to the left the accident would not have happened. I had just passed the carriage when it happened.

Mr. Stimpson- Where had you been that day?

Witness – That’s not your business.

Mr. Stimpson – Where had you been that day - you have heard that or you might have done.

The Judge – If you don’t answer you will render yourself liable to a fine.

Mr. Stimpson – Where had you been?

Witness –Where had I been? To Bedford. I had a roll, cheese and half a pint of beer at one o’clock at the New Inn.

Joseph Sears, dealer, Rushden, said on the 17^th November Mr. Laughton was driving him home from Bedford. When they got through Clapham tollgate they passed a carriage and then saw two carts of pigs standing on the road side. Saw Mr. Hine coming. Mr. Hine’s horse took fright at the two loads of pigs.

By the Judge – I will swear that both carts had pigs in

Witness; When opposite the cottage Mr. Hine’s horse was rearing up at the pigs in the cart. Called out “Pull up your horse, as we don’t want any accident to happen.” Met Mr. Hine, who had passed the two carts. Called out. He could not get out of the road, because his horse was all the while plunging. It reared up and backed against the cart shaft. Mr. Hine got off his horse. Mr. Laughton said “If I were you I would take it in and foment it with some brandy”

Being cross examined as to where the accident happened witness said it was past the carts and near the cottage on the Bedford side of the Horse and Groom.

Elizabeth Burton, Clapham, resided in a cottage between the Swan and the Horse and Groom. On the 17^th November, about three o’clock in the afternoon, was in her cottage; heard a noise and looked out to see what caused it. Mr. Laughton was driving from Bedford, and Mr. Hine was coming from Oakley. Mr. Hine’s horse was plunging and came up to Mr. Laughton and Mr. Laughton stopped. The accident happened in a moment. Mr. Hine got off his horse. Mr. Laughton said “The best thing you can do is to foment it with brandy.” Mr. Hine said “I wish I could get a stable for it.” Mr. Laughton said “I should think you could get one here.”

Mr. Stimpson having replied upon the evidence for the defence, the Judge summed up and in doing so pointed out the different parts of the evidence worthy of consideration, omitting nothing of importance. There would be two questions for the jury to consider; first whether they would believe the statement made by the defendant or the statement made by the plaintiff. He said this because he was of the same opinion as the learned advocate for the plaintiff that there was a very great difference between the two cases that it was hardly possible to reconcile them. In cases of this description people, who feel that their interests – wrongly so considered - are much affected, spoke more than, perhaps, on other occasions they would do. If the defendant’s evidence was correct, there was no doubt that he would be entitled to their verdict; but the question was whether that evidence was truthful, of whether I was of a fraudulent and false nature. There was a difficulty in getting at the precise spot where the accident occurred; both accounts gave room for doubt. The plaintiff, on his part, could alone state where it happened, but he was corroborated to some extent by the traces of blood on the path. The defendant and his witnesses said the accident occurred at different spot, but each of them varied in stating exactly where. Supposing they believed the plaintiff’s account of the accident then, secondly, they must determine whether the accident was occasioned by the carelessness of the defendant and whether the plaintiff did all that ought to have been done to avoid an accident, before they could find for the plaintiff. His Honour referred to the evidence bearing upon this point, and said, notwithstanding that the plaintiff was on his wrong side of the road, if the jury were satisfied from the evidence that he acted with the necessary prudence and caution on the occasion, he would be entitled to a verdict.

The jury retired and within a quarter of an hour returned to court with a verdict for the plaintiff.