In his closing speech, Mr. Macleod commented on the extraordinary delay in bringing these proceedings, and ad ded that, whilst it was not suggested that the company ought to fight every claim against them, this was certainly one they were justified in defending. Whilst wishing to be quite fair to Mrs. Roggers, they could not be quite sure after all this delay that she had not exaggerated her case against the company.
Mr. Goldring urged that there. had been clear and obvious negligence. Plaintiff had not claimed heavy damages, but she was entitled to substantial recompense for the expense she had been put to and the great pain she had suffered. Té might well have been that she sustained permanent injury, in which case she would have asked the jury for very substantial compensation.
After a brief summing up by kis Lordship, the jury retired ana in five minutes returned with a verdict for plaintiff, awarding her Tls. 500 damages.
His Lordship gave judgment for this sum, with costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.