"The Lord Chief Justice said perhaps the word explosion was hardly the correct term in the ordinary sense, but probably in every case when the light was applied there was something of the same nature in a less egree. There would be a sudden expansion of the gases in the interior. Mr. Colam said the evidence was that there had never before been any explosion, but that there was a sort of humming noise. His complaint was that the learned judge by his summing up led the jury to believe that because a piece of the vat came out w en the explosion took place, that was evidence that the vat was defective. There was no evidence whatever of actual defect.
Mr. Justice Mathew said there was evidence that the vat was an old one.
Mr. Colam said it was only proved to be five years old, and it had gone through this process about every three months.
Mr. Justice Mathew said there was no evidence it was only five years old.
The Lord Chief Justice said a pitcher might go often to the well and yet get broken at last.
Mr. Colam then read the summing up, pointing out passages of which he complained, and again submitted that the learned judge had led the jury to a wrong conclusion, and that there was no evidence of negligence.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qARsQL0Yf...er_Beer_3a.jpgThe Lord Chief Justice, without calling on Mr. Statham, said the learned judge left the question to the jury whether the injury to the plaintiff arose from the defective state of the vat, and whether such defect might by reasonable care have been discovered and guarded against, and it could not be contested that that was a roper uestion to be left to the jury. But it was contended on the part of the defendants that there was no evidence which ought to have been left to the jury that the injury did arise from the defective state of the vat. After reading the section of the Act, and referring to the operation performed, he said it seemed clear on the evidence that this operation exerted a certain amount of pressure outwards on the vat which was submitted to it. One of the witnesses said that when the light was applied flames came out, and a noise is heard; "hum ming, like a report." He did not doubt, therefore, that there was caused by the lighting of the pitch a kind of modified explosion in every case, or at all events a pressure arising from something of the character of an explosion. On the occasion in question this pressure resulted in a portion of the vat being forced out. He did not find in the evidence that the plaintiff was at any great distance, but he fell to the ground, and the pitch he was carrying went over him. Did not that state of facts raise a prima facie case of negligence within the meaning of the Act, which had to be answered? It could only have arisen from the fact that the vat was not strong enough to bear the operation. It was suggested that this was an exceptional operation, that there were chemicals in the pitch which caused the explosion, but if that was the suggestion it was for the defendants to show that such a thing was possible, and they called no evidence at all. The evidence was that this vat was five years old to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, but of its actual age there was no evidence at all: or that any examination had been made of it to see whether it was sound. Under these circumstances he could not say that there was not evidence proper to be considered by the jury, and what they said after giving their verdict showed that they understood and appreciated the matter submitted to them, and had formed an opinion which seemed to him to be a sensible one. They said, “The jury would like to add that if proper means had been adopted to ascertain the strength of the vat before firing, the explosion probably would not have occurred." The summingup must be taken as a whole, not isolated sentences or half sentences by themselves, and taking it as a whole he thought the learned judge had left the proper questions to the jury, and in the proper way. The verdict and judgment would therefore stand.
Mr. Justice Mathew concurred, and the appeal was therefore dismissed with costs."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 116.
