London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Newington 1895

Fortieth annual report of the proceedings of the Vestry of the Parish of St. Mary, Newington, London...

This page requires JavaScript

62
men, &c. The excursion altogether was not quite so successful as
in previous years, perhaps owing to the day being Saturday and the
largo number of excursionists thronging the town.
Gratuities.—Gratuities were granted during the year to the widows
of deceased workmen in the following instances :—Horace Kino,
sewerman, many years' service, ten pounds on the 1st May 1896;
and George Newman, carman, 14 years' service, ten guineas on the
13th November 1895.

Claims for Compensation.—The Vestry paid the following sums as compensation to the various persons named in settlement of their claims for the causes enumerated, after full investigation by the Committee: —

1895.£s.d.
April 26.Mr. Speh—for hire of barrow while his own barrow was being repaired by Vestry's workmen, having been damaged by one of Vestry's vans090
June 26.Miss Moody—for injuries sustained through defective condition of footway in Little Chatham Place500
Sept. 10.Mr. Linney—for damage to horse and coal trolly through defective sewer trench in Ann's Row150

A few other claims were sent in but not entertained by the V estry,
and no proceedings ensued except in the following case.
Simpson v. the Vestry.—This action arose out of an accident in
Nursery Row on the 21st June 1895, when the horse attached to
one of the Vestry's water vans became restive and collided with a
vehicle belonging to Mr. Winfield, in so doing knocking down
and injuring a child named Albert Simpson. The child was examined
by the Medical Officer of Health and two other doctors, who
found the injuries to be less severe than was at first feared. The
father issued a writ against the Vestry, and delivered a statement
of claim laying the damages at £500; but the Vestry was advised
by its solicitors and the Clerk to pay the sum of £50 into Court
with a denial of liability, and a cheque for this amount was drawn
on the 24th July. If the plaintiff had elected not to accept this sum
and to take further action, he would in the event of his failing to