Injury to a Rushden Man
Higham Ferrers Firm Sued
Employers’ Liability

At the County Court on Monday Sam Elmer, shoe operative, 143 Queen Street, Rushden, sued Thomas Gadsby and Son, shoe manufacturers, Higham Ferrers, for £50 under the Employers’ Liability Act, and (alternatively) as damages for injury by wrongful act, neglect, or default. Plaintiff had his right hand crushed so as to necessitate the amputation of his forefinger and part of the second finger on September 11, 1907, through alleged defects in the machine (a twin moulder) on which he was employed.

The particulars of the defects were : The safety arrangement with which the machine was provided to prevent accident was our of order whereby the machine was put in motion by means other than that which would have been used had the safety arrangements been in order.

Mr. B. Campion, barrister, for plaintiff, and Mr. Jas. Jackson for defendants.

Plaintiff, a minor, sued by his next friend, Sarah Elmer. This was a jury case.

Plaintiff’s Evidence

Mr. Campion explained the working of the twin moulder. The safety arrangement attached to the twin moulder was no safety arrangement at all, being so constructed that it defeated its own object. There should have been two handles, both working together on a lever, but in this case it could have been worked by one handle. Then there was another defect, which allowed of a screw being turned and throwing out of action the safety gear, and allowing the machine to be worked by the treadle. By any act of carelessness a lad of 16 might easily meet with an accident. In this case he had left the machine for a short time, and when he returned he thought it was as he left it. But it had been moved, and the injuries were done which were the foundation of the claim. Defendants had

Behaved Handsomely

and had put plaintiff on temporarily on the wages he had before. But plaintiff could not rise to the higher branches. The sum of £3 5s had been paid as compensation, at the rate of 10s a week. He asked the jury to allow damages for the pain and suffering and for the future crippling of plaintiff.

Plaintiff, sworn, said he was 17 years of age last February. He had been at work on the machine for about two months. It was possible to work the machine with one handle and the treadle.

Mr. Jackson, in reply to His Honour, aid the safety arrangement fixed on the machine was the best model made, and the model approved by the factory inspector.

Plaintiff, continuing, said he had seen Mr. Ben Gadsby work the machine in the way he had described. Witness was taught the machine by another man. It was

A Common Experience

to work the machine in that way. He was instructed to work the machine with two hands. When he stopped the machine, he had put tow soles into it, and when he returned he started the machine with one hand, but it worked in an opposite direction from what he expected.

By Mr. Jackson: He returned to work on October 28th. During his absence from the factory, he received 10s a week, and when he returned he got his old wages. He was taught the machine by Townsend, but he did not tell him to use both hands. He did tell him that the inspector had caught him doing that, and

Had Cautioned Him.

By the Judge: He only put one hand in, because they were waiting for the work. If he had not hurried, the foreman or the master would have shouted at him.

By Mr. Jackson: He had been told by other workmen to work it with one hand. The machine was out of order a week before the accident. He knew of no defect. There could have been no accident if he had had both hands on the lever. He usually employed both hands, but when they wanted work done quickly he only used one. Townsend told him what the inspector had said just before the accident, and other besides Townsend told him how to work the machine.

Re-examined: Nearly all the other workers operated the machine with one hand.

His Honour: How many fingers are there left ? (Laughter) Have there been

Any Other Accidents?

Plaintiff: Yes; one young man got his wrist under the machine, but the machine was stopped.

His Honour: Was that before the accident?

Plaintiff: Yes, but I had not heard of it until afterwards. When I was working with one and I did not realise that I was going to meet with that terrible accident.

By the Judge: Townsend told him to use two hands, but Watts told him otherwise.

His Honour: If Townsend told you to use two hands, why did you do otherwise?

Plaintiff: It was the quicker way.

His Honour: Why should you, it made no difference to your wages?

Plaintiff: The workmen would have said something.

His Honour: Why did you not tell them to

Mind Their Own Business?

Plaintiff: They might have sworn at me.

His Honour: If they had, that would not have hurt you.

Plaintiff: If they got behind with the work they would have gone to the employer and perhaps someone else would have been given the job.

His Honour suggested that Mr. Campion and Mr. Jackson should confer with him in his private room, and this was acted upon.

Upon their return into court, a further conference took place between the parties and their legal representatives.

Eventually Mr. Campion applied for an adjournment until next court. He hoped that an arrangement might be made by which the case would be withdrawn.

Mr. Jackson consented to the adjournment.

His Honour said the jury need not attend again unless notified.


29th May, 1908

Rushden Operative’s Claim
Sequel to An Accident at Higham Ferrers
udge and Jury to See The Machinery At Work

At Wellingborough County Court, on Monday, the hearing was resumed of the action partly heard before a jury at the last court, in which Sam Elmer, shoe operative, 143 Queen Street, Rushden sued Thomas Gadsby and Son, shoe manufacturer, Higham Ferrers, for £50 under the Employers Liability Act.

The facts of the case, as already deposed, are that plaintiff whilst working a twin moulder machine in defendant’s factory, met with an accident, and lost a forefinger and part of a second finger. The contention for plaintiff was that the machine was not properly protected inasmuch as apparatus with which it was fitted for securing safety of working could be so manipulated as to lead to

Risk of Accident.

In fact, it was through plaintiff so operating it that the accident happened. It was urged for defendants that plaintiff was disobeying his instructions as to the manner in which he should use the machine. After the plaintiff’s evidence had been taken his Honour conferred with the legal gentlemen engaged, with the result that an adjournment was applied for and granted, the hope being expressed, that in the interim some settlement might be arrived at. This result, however, was not attained, and the case again came before his Honour and the jury.

Mr. Campion, instructed by Messrs. Darnell and Price, Northampton, again appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. James Jackson, Northampton, defended.

The only further evidence taken was that of John Ennis, Queen Street, Rushden, who said that a machine which could be worked as plaintiff worked it was defective. Witness endeavoured to explain to the judge and jury the method of working the machine and the effect of the safety apparatus.

A Model

of the apparatus, which Mr. Jackson said had had the approval of the Factory Inspector, was fitted up in the precincts of the court.

Mr. Campion said he was unable to accept it, as it did not show how it was worked in connection with the machine on which the accident occurred.

His Honour confessed that he was unable to understand the working of the machine, and said it would be far better that he and the jury should see the machine in actual work at the factory.

It was, therefore, decided to adjourn the case to the July court and that on the morning of court day the judge and jury shall visit the factory at Higham Ferrers.


24th July, 1908

A Rushden Man’s Claim
Against Higham Ferrers Manufacturers

At Wellingborough County Court, on Monday, before Judge Sir Thomas Snagge, the hearing was resumed of an action in which Samuel Elmer, of 143 Queen Street, Rushden, sued Messrs. Thomas Gadsby and Son, Higham Ferrers, for £50 compensation under the Employers Liability Act.

The case arose out of an accident which plaintiff met with in defendant’s factory whilst working a twin sole moulder. As the result of that accident he lost a forefinger and part of a second finger. Plaintiff held that the machine was not fitted with a proper safety apparatus.

The judge and jury visited the factory to see the machine at work.

Evidence was taken at Wellingborough and the case was again adjourned.


30th October, 1908

Higham Ferrers Manufacturers
Sued by Rushden Youth
Contributary Neglicence
“Fool Proof” and “Malice Proof”

At Wellingborough County Court on Monday, before Judge Snagge, Samuel Elmer, a shoe-hand of Rushden, sued Thos. Gadsby and Co., shoe manufacturers, Higham Ferrers, for compensation for the loss of two fingers, which were cut off while operating a twin sole moulder at the factory of defendants, was commenced.

The case had been heard in the three previous Courts. Mr. Bernard Campion (instructed by Messrs. Darnell and Price, Northampton) for plaintiff, and Mr. Jackson, Northampton, represented defendants.

The particulars of the case have already been given in the “Rushden Echo.”

It was argued for plaintiff that the safety apparatus attached to the machine was defective, and enabled plaintiff to work the machine with one hand, and thus put his other hand in a dangerous position.

The defence was that the accident was due to plaintiff’s neglect to take proper advantage of the safety apparatus.

Mr. C. F. Wright, late Inspector of Factories, said that the twin sole moulder was one of the

Most Dangerous Machines

in the trade. He considered it was practically impossible to guard dangerous machines by mechanical devices.

Mr. Jackson: It is not possible to make a safety apparatus fool-proof and malice-proof?

Witness did not think it possible to make a safety appliance proof against malice, but such appliances were invented to protect fools. (Laughter.) He considered the safety apparatus the best that existed for that particular machine.

His Honour: What is a safety apparatus?

Witness: An apparatus designed to prevent accidents.

Was the appliance on this machine a safety apparatus? - Yes.

Did it prevent this accident? - No.

Then there is no such thing as an absolute safety apparatus? - To all intents and purposes it is a safety apparatus.

What do you mean by those words? - As far as it is humanly possible to make it so.

James Kellett, Inspector of Factories for the district, who was subpænaed to appear, replied to Mr. Jackson that the safety apparatus applied to the twin moulder was

Defective In Its Working

inasmuch as it could be gripped by one hand, leaving the other free to be put into possible danger. If the operators gripped the levers of the apparatus by both hands, as they should do, the apparatus would be effective always.

Mr. Jackson: Suppose the young person was told he must use his two hands, you consider any different use as improper use?

Witness: It might be improper use, but if an accident were going to happen I would say, Make a better apparatus.

Frederick Gadsby said that when plaintiff was instructed in the use of the machine he was told how properly to use the apparatus. Witness subsequently reprimanded plaintiff for gripping two levers with one hand instead of two.

His Honour: You cautioned this lad twice; why did you not

Dismiss Him

for disobedience?

Witness: You might do nothing else.

Benjamin G. Gadsby, A. Townshead, A. Keay (Director of the British United Shoe Machinery Co.), and a mechanical engineer, also gave evidence. The latter said the safety apparatus of the twin sole moulder had been improved and developed, so that the accident could not have happened in the same way. The first named appliance was effective as it stood for all reasonable purposes.

After Counsel had addressed the jury, his Honour gave the jury the following questions to answer:-

( 1 ) Was the condition of the machine which caused the accident defective by reason of its not being perfectly safe if used in a certain way?

( 2 ) If so, was that defect or defectiveness known to the employers as well as the workmen?

( 3 ) Was the injury of the plaintiff brought about by that defect?

( 4 ) If so, might the accident have been avoided if the plaintiff had exercised reasonable care?

The jury answered the questions in the affirmative, and Mr. Campion claimed judgment on the answer to the third question; but his Honour said the answer to the fourth question taxed plaintiff with contributory negligence. His Honour gave judgment for the defendants.


20th November, 1908

County Court Case from Rushden
The Action Against a Higham Ferrers Firm
What About The Costs?

The case in which a Rushden youth named Elmer sued Messrs. Thomas Gadsby, boot manufacturers, of Higham Ferrers, again came before Sir Thomas Snagge on Monday.

A month ago the jury gave a verdict for defendants with costs under Scale B.

Mr. Darnell, for Elmer, now argued that the case was one in which the lad had reasonable grounds to bring an action under the Employers’ Liability Act, in the first instance, and not leave costs to be charged on anything that the lad might receive hereafter.

The Judge said that plaintiff had two remedies. He had two barrels, and chose to fire off both, but he missed with first, and brought down the bird with the second. His Honour held that the taxed costs under the Employers’ Liability Act would have to be deducted from anything that the lad might receive under the Act.