HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1032 and id is 1 raw text is: NEWBY V. WILTSHIRE
he had been very ill (c)l or washed overboard. His entry was many days afterwards;
and if he had not entered, he would have been carried abroad in the man-of-war. It
was motive of bounty and favour to let him enter.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
[284] NEWBY v. WILTSHIRE (a). Friday, 22d April, 1785. A master is not liable
to the overseers of a parish who have been compelled to pay the amount of a
surgeon's bill for curing his servant, in consequence of an accident happening to
him in the parish.
At the trial of this cause (which was an action on this case) at the last assizes for
the county of Cambridge, before Ashurst, Justice, a verdict was found for the plaintiff,
with X32, 12s. 7d. damages, subject to the opinion of the Court on a case which
stated,
That the defendant, a farmer at Thaxted, in the county of Essex, and a man of
substance and property there, in May, 1784, sent his waggon to Cambridge, with two
servants, a man and a boy; and in returning from thence with a load of oats, when
they came to the parish of Sawston, in the county of Cambridge, the boy sitting on
the shafts of the waggon, a cart happened to pass by, and the whip of the driver of
the cart touching one of the waggon-horses as they passed, the horse took fright and
started aside, whereupon the boy fell off the shafts and had his leg and thigh fractured
by a wheel of the waggon going over him, so that be could not be removed from the
parish of Sawston without endangering his life. The plaintiff, who was a parish
officer of Sawston, took care of the boy and employed a surgeon to attend him, and
expended in his necessary maintenance and cure X32, 12s. 7d., the sum for which the
action was brought. The defendant knew of the accident the same night that it
happened, and six weeks afterwards went to Sawston, when he found the surgeon
going to amputate the limb that was fractured, and before the operation asked the
boy if he consented; and the boy consenting, the limb was taken off. The boy was
a yearly servant to the defendant at £1, 10s. a year, and was settled at Thaxted.
After his cure, he served out his year with ,ie defendant, and received his whole
year's wages.
The question was, whether, under all the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled
to recover.
Sayer, for the plaintiff.-The first question is, how far the master is liable for the
cure of his servant who is sick by the act of God or accident; the second, whether,
under the [285] particular circumstances of this case, the defendant is not liable.
1st. By the Roman law, slaves abandoned in sickness were ipso facto disfranchised.
The master could not retain any part of the servant's wages on account of sickness,
and the servant himself is not liable. R. v. Christchurch (b). In case of casual poor,
the parish where the accident happens is liable in strict justice, but still has a claim
upon the parish where the pauper is settled. The parish where he is settled could not
be liable, because he is not a pauper. If the accident had happened in that parish,
the master must have paid. The master is the only person ultimately liable-liable
to maintain his servant both in sickness and in health. R. v. Hales Owen (c)2. If the
servant is beaten, the master may recover the money he has paid for his cure.
Everard v. Hopkins (d), Watson v. Turner (e).
Wilson, contra.-First, the action is not maintainable by one parish officer alone.
It is not stated expressly that there were more, but it sufficiently appears, for the
plaintiff is entitled a parish officer. Secondly, no order on the parish is stated, and
the payment therefore was voluntary. Simpson v. Johnson (f). Thirdly, the action
should have been brought either by the servant, or by the surgeon and the other
persons who provided the necessaries. A right of action cannot be transferred. No
case can be mentioned in which a parish laying out money previously to an order has
(c)l See Chandler v. Grieves, C. B., H. 32 Geo. 3, 2 H. Bl. 606 (U) and Abbott on
Shipping, 442, 5th ed.
(a) S. C. 2 Esp. N. P. C. 739.
(b) Burr. S. C. 158. (c)2 B. R., T. 4 Geo. 1, 1 Str. 99.
(d) B. R., T. 12 Jac. 1, 2 Buls. 332. (e) Exe. T. 7 Geo. 3, B. N. P. 281.
(f) B. R., M. 19 Geo. 3, ante, vol. i. p. 7.
883
4 DOUGL. 284.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1032&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)