View report page

53
engaged as lad messenger during the past fourteen months, was,
on the 24th July, promoted to this department as office youth, at
salaries of £50 and £30 per annum, respectively, rising by annual
increments of £10 and £5 to maximums of £80 and £50.
G. W. Tubby was appointed lad messenger at a weekly wage
of 8s. Applications for the whole of the above appointments
were invited by advertisements in the public press.
Accident, Latchmere Road Railway Bridge, Action for damages. Reference was made in the last Report of the
Vestry to an action commenced against the Wandsworth
Board of Works prior to the separation of the
Parish of Battersea from the District of that Board, by
Mr. W. Warner for damages in respect of alleged injury caused by
the insufficient height of the West London Extension Railway
Bridge in Latchmere Road. The action was tried on the 4th
April before Mr. Justice Field and a special jury, when the
plaintiff was non-suited, the Judge remarking that the plaintiff
must prove negligence before he could succeed in making the
Board liable and that in his opinion there was no evidence of
negligence. Judgment was accordingly given for the defendants
with costs. The plaintiff, however, applied to set aside the
non-suit and for an order for a new trial and this application
came before the Court on the 20th June when it was dismissed
with costs.
Brackley the Vestry. Action for seizure of barrow. An action was commenced against the Vestry on
the 30th August, 1888, by Mr. H. Brackley for the
alleged illegal seizure of a barrow-and goods by the
Vestry's Street Keeper on the 14th July of that year in Falcon
Road. The case came before Mr. Justice Charles on the 2nd
May, 1889, when judgment was given in favour of the Vestry
with costs, but with a stay of execution for 14 days to allow the
plaintiff to appeal should he be so advised.
The plaintiff gave notice of appeal and on the 8th August it
was heard before Lord Esher, the Master of the Rolls, and Lords
Justices Lindley and Bowen and dismissed with costs, the Court
unanimously upholding the judgment of the Court below, and