6. Claim by a Workman against his Employer for the Personal Negligence of the latter.

1. On the 3rd of February, 1880, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the erection of a house at Ely.

2. The plaintiff has suffered damage by personal injuries to the plaintiff caused by the negligence of the defendant in providing rotten timber and rotten ropes for the scaffolding necessarily used in the building of the said house.

The plaintiff claims £150 damages.

7. Claim by a Workman against his Employer under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880.

1. The plaintiff was a guard in the employment of the defendant's company on the 2nd of March, 1881.

2. Owing to the negligence of the signalman in the defendant's service at D. Junction the train on which the plaintiff was travelling came into collision with a goods train, and the plaintiff suffered personal injuries.

3. The proceedings in this action were commenced in the D. County Court, and have been duly moved into this Court by certiorari.

The plaintiff claims £250 damages.

Defence.

1. The said collision was not caused by the negligence of the said signalman.

2. There was contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff.

3. Notice of injury was not given within six weeks.

4. This action was not commenced within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury.

5. Prior to the plaintiff suffering the said injury he agreed with the defendant company that in consideration of an annual payment to be made by them to the M. Railway Benefit Society, in the event of his meeting with any accident in the course of his employment he would look to the funds of the said society for compensation, and would not take any pro

ceedings against the defendants under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880.

Reply.

1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the statement of defence. 2. As to the 5th paragraph thereof he says that he was induced to enter into the said contract by the fraud of the defendant company, who represented to him [here state the particular fraudulent statement complained of].

3. The defendants have not paid to the said M. Railway Benefit Society the annual sum which was the consideration for the plaintiff's said promise.

Rejoinder.

The defendants join issue upon the reply.

8. Claim by an Infant through her next friend for Personal Injuries caused by Leaving a Horse unattended.

The plaintiff has suffered personal injuries by the negligence of the defendant's servant, who, on the 10th of June, 1879, left a horse and cart unattended in the streets of L., which drove over and injured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims £60 damages.

9. Claim against Contractors and their Employer for negligently conducting Building Operations.

1. The defendant A. B. is the owner of a house and land contiguous to the plaintiff's house, which is entitled to support from the defendant's said house and land. The defendant C. D. was, in the month of June, 1879, employed by the defendant A. B. to pull down and rebuild his said house.

2. In the course of so doing the defendant C. D. so negligently conducted himself in excavating the ground adjacent to the plaintiff's house, and in underpinning the same, that the plaintiff's house was damaged.

The plaintiff claims £500.

Defence of the Defendant A. B.

1. The plaintiff's house was not entitled to any right of support from the defendant's house and land.

2. The defen lant C. D. was not guilty of negligence as alleged, or at all.

Defence of C. D.

1. The plaintiff's house was not entitled to any right of support from the defendant's land.

2. The defendant was not guilty of negligence as alleged, or at all.

10. Claim for Negligence of Defendant's Servants, causing an

Explosion.

1. The plaintiff employed the defendant to do certain necessary repairs to the gas pipes in the plaintiff's house, 13, Wilton Crescent, Brighton.

2. The defendant's servants so negligently conducted themselves as to cause an explosion of the gas, and to do serious damage to the said house.

Particulars of damage :-[Set them out.]

The plaintiff claims £50.

11. Claim for Negligence in leaving a Shaft Unfenced.

The plaintiff has sustained personal injuries by the negli gence of the defendant in leaving a shaft in the room C. of his sugar refinery at Bristol unfenced and without any protection, whereby the plaintiff, who was on the defendant's premises by his invitation, fell through it and broke both his legs. The plaintiff claims £500 damages.

12. Claim for Damage caused by a Collision between two Ships.

The plaintiff has suffered damage from injuries to his ship the "Betsy," and the cargo on board thereof, by a collision with the ship the "Jane," caused by the negligent navigation thereof by the defendant or his servants on the river Thames, on the 1st of February, 1883.

Particulars of loss and expenses :—

1. Charges of Jones & Co., Shipwrights, £450 28.

2. Loss of ship from 1st of February, 1883, to 1st of March, 1883, £280.

Particulars of damage to cargo:—

[Insert them.]

The plaintiff claims £.

13. Claim by Executor under Lord Campbell's Act for Death of Testator through Negligent Navigation of a Barge.

The plaintiff, as the executor of A. B., deceased, brings this action for the benefit of C., the widow, and D. and E., the children of A. B., who have suffered damage by the defendant's negligence in navigating a barge on the river Mersey, on the 10th of May, 1881, whereby the said A. B. was drowned. Particulars pursuant to the statute are delivered herewith. The plaintiff claims £.

Defence.

1. The defendant denies that he was negligent in the navigation of the said barge.

2. At the time of the said accident the deceased A. B. was on board a barge called the "G.," and there was contributory negligence upon the part of those in charge of the said barge.

3. The defendant does not admit that the persons for whom the plaintiff sues have sustained any pecuniary damage by the death of A. B.

14. Claim by a Passenger against a Railway Company for Injuries suffered in a Collision.

The plaintiff has suffered damage from the defendant's negligence in carrying the plaintiff as a passenger by railway from London to Brighton, causing personal injuries to the plaintiff in a collision near Hayward Heath, on the 15th January, 1882. Particulars of expenses, &c.:

Lost 15 weeks' salary as clerk at £2

Defence.

The defendants bring into Court the sum of £150, and say that the same is sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim herein.

Reply.

The plaintiff joins issue upon the statement of defence.

15. Claim for Personal Injuries by Defendants' Train Overshooting the Platform.

1. On the 3rd of November, 1880, the plaintiff was being carried by the defendants on their railway from A. to B. as a passenger.

2. Owing to the negligence of the defendants' servants when the train arrived at B., it overshot the platform, and the plaintiff, in endeavouring to get out of the carriage, as he was invited to do by the defendants' servants, sustained personal injuries.

Particulars of expenses :

[Here insert them.]

The plaintiff claims £250 damages.

Defence.

1. The defendants were not guilty of negligence as alleged

or at all.

2. The plaintiff was not invited by the defendants' servants to get out of the carriage.

3. There was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

4. Before action brought the plaintiff accepted from the defendants £15 in full accord and satisfaction of the cause of action herein.

Reply.

1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the defence.

2. As to paragraph 4 thereof, it was expressly agreed when the plaintiff accepted the said sum of £15, that the same was not to be a full accord and satisfaction for the cause of action