Richard Willing - butcher Elizabeth Street Hobart
born 1815 - UK? - death certificate has place of birth Tasmania
Died 1 May 1890 (Hobart)
mother - ??? Agnes Parnell (Willing) - baptised 1791 Devon UK
father ??? Richard Willing - born 1782
sister - Mary Willing (Lindsay)
married 18 Apr 1843 Eleanor (Ellen) Plummer (Willing) b 1826
Children -
Richard James Willing 1845
Agnes Willing - 1846
James 1848
Henry Philip Willing 1849
William Samuel Willing 1852
Eleanor Martha Parnell Willing 1854
Eliza Alice Risby 1857
Amy Parnell Lucas - 1859
infant - 01 Jul 1861 - female
Emily Rose Willing 1863
infant - 10 Mar 1865 - male
Charles Willing 1865
Alfred Ernest Willing - 1867
Percy Albert Willing 18 Jan 1869
Minnie Isabel Willing 1871
WILLING. -On 1 May 1890 at his late residence, Hampden Road, Hobart, Richard Willing,
in the 76th year of his age. The funeral will leave his late residence, at 2 o'clock.
The Mercury Mon 30 Nov 1868
|
Launceston Examiner Wed 25 Nov 1885
|
At the Civil Sittings to-day, the case Willing v. the Hobart Corporation, which was a claim for £500 damages, was heard. M. A. I. Clark appeared for plaintiff, and Hon. J. S. Dodds for the defendants. In this case, Richard Willing, a butcher residing at Battery Point, sought to recover £500 damages from the Hobart Corporation for negligence in not forming a proper protection to certain drains now being made in South-street, in consequence of which the plaintiff had received very severe injuries, and was still compelled to go about on crutches. From the evidence for the prosecution it was shown that Willing went out into the street to catch a horse, and got near the open drain, when the earth broke away at the side, causing him to fall in, the result being he had his thigh broken. The plaintiff had to pay £14 medical attendance, and considered he had lost £40 per week in business since the accident. Dr. Perkins stated he found the plaintiff with his left thigh broken, and two or three days after found him suffering from a double rupture, but did not know how long he had been suffering from this. Further evidence showed that the open drains were not properly guarded at night, and were not provided with a light, one other witness stating she had fallen into this drain because he could not see where it was, owing to darkness. After further evidence, the Court adjourned at 6 o'clock till 11 next day.
Daily Telegraph Launceston, Thu 19 Nov 1885
WILLING v. MAYOR OF HOBART. This was a claim for £500 damages. Mr. A. I. CLARK (instructed by Clark and Simmons) for plaintiff, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL (instructed by Young, Walker, and All port) for defendant. The following jury was empanelled :Wm. Pretyman, Robt. Walker, E. Chancellor, Jas. Simmons, John Pearce, N. H. Propsting, and H. R. Brent. George Beedham, articled clerk, proved service of the notice of the action upon the corporation. Wm. Brown, surveyor, said he had made a survey of the length and breadth of South street, and produced a plan of it. 'C. W. S. James, city surveyor, said that two new gutters were made in South-street by defendant under his supervision. The work was commenced in May, and finished in August. In course of this work it was necessary to make excavations. The depth did not exceed 12in. and the breadth 2ft. 2in, There was some delay in carrying out the work in the month of July. Cross-examined : In giving the breadth, he included the kerbing, which was about 8in. Concrete was put in the channeling to the depth of 6in., so, that when it was laid, the depth of the gutter would only be about 6in, He believed that the concrete had been put in before the accident, Witness was a civil engineer and had had 20 years' experience in this sort of work, and he considered that the works were not of a dangerous character. Precautions were taken to guard them, such as lights at night, and some trestles were put up. The street was a narrow one and to have put up a hoarding would have impeded the traffic. The works were carried on, as it were, under the nose of plaintiff. The contractors in this case were Messrs. John Gillon and Sons, and they were very careful men.
Re-examined : The Police Act required that lights be kept burning at night ; that was part of the contract. Dr. Perkins said that he was called on the night of the 21st July to attend plaintiff. He was lying on a ---nor in his own house, suffering from injury to his leg left thigh was broken. He remained in bed about seven weeks. During plaintiff's illness witness discovered that he was suffering from double rupture, which he attributed to the accident. Witness discovered the rupture two or three days after the accident. He did not think that plaintiff could have had the rupture for a long time previously without knowing it. He saw the plaintiff on Tuesday. The fracture had united, but the left leg was shorter than the right leg by an inch. Plaintiff would require to wear a pair of crutches for some weeks. Plaintiff might be able to walk about without crutches or stick, but his gait would be embarrassed.
Cross-examined : He had never attended plaintiff previously. The rupture might have existed before the accident. Richard Willing, plaintiff in this notion, said that he was a butcher carrying on business at Hampden-road. He had been 30 years in business. He remembered being in his shop about 7 o'clock at night on the 21st July, and was on that occasion in his usual health. He was called out of his shop by some boys, who said, " Mr. Willing, your horse is out." He went round the corner into South-street. The night was dark, and he could not hear or see anything of the animal. He heard boys calling out that the horse had gone in again to the yard. His son came up, caught hold of him by the hand, and said "It is all right father." He had been standing near the edge of the open gutter, and when he turned round to go home he fell backwards into the drain. He called upon Mr. Adcock, a neighbour, to assist in getting him up, as he had broken his leg. Adcock, however, was not at home. Plaintiff's wife and Mr. Wilkinson, chemist, assisted him into his own house. He could not say whether there were any lights ; it was so dark that he could not see the trench. Plaintiff was attended by Dr. Perkins, and had not been able personally to attend to business since the accident. He estimated his loss at about £10 a week. At present his son, who was a carpenter, attended to the shop. It would take £3 a week to get a competent man to keep the shop. The doctor’s bill amounted to £11. Cross-examined : Witness was 72 years of ago. He had seen the work going on from day to day. He knew the trench was there, and he believed that he had fallen into his hole by the excitement of the moment throwing him off his guard. Plaintiff for some time previous to the accident had to use a stick when he went any distance. He was troubled with weakness of the knee, but had not suffered from paralysis. During his illness he did not got any competent man to attend to his business. He did not communicate in any way with the corporation as to his injuries, but instructed his solicitors. His HONOR : No doubt he will be willing to accept any offer from the corporation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A losing side generally is: he (plaintiff) is always "Willing," (Laughter.)
By the jury : There was a gas lamp at the corner of the street. F. Wilkinson, chemist, deposed to having assisted plaintiff on the night of tho accident. Ho found Willing lying in the trench, and he had to step in to get him out. When he stepped in he found the depth of the trench nearly up to his knee. There was no light that evening. He had seen a light on some evenings, but it was often blown out. He had occasion to pass up and down this street, and often found the trench without a light. He had seen two men on separate occasions fall into the trench. He had no reason to think those men were not sober.
His HONOUR : Did you do the good Samaritan on those occasions ? "
Witness : No ; they picked themselves up. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined : He inspected the trench afterwards. If the contractor said that the concrete was in the trench at the time of the accident he would not dispute it. Asked as to the measurement of the trench, he said that he had not measured it, but thought it was up to his knee. Pressed upon this point he said that the fact was that he had not anticipated that he would have been asked any questions as to the depth, and had taken no particular notice. He was positive that there were no lights that evening at the works. Charles Willing, son of plaintiff, said that he was a carpenter to business, but had been assisting his father in the butcher's shop for some months. He examined the trench on the night of the accident, and found the earthwork broken away. J. Pratt said that he lived in the locality where the accident occurred, and was aware of the works in progress in South street. He had occasion to go up and down South street after dark, and had frequently seen the works left without lights. He considered the excavations dangerous. The cuttings were deep at certain portions, and attention had been called to this dangerous thoroughfare in the Press.
Mrs McClimonts said that she lived in South-street 23 years ; generally this street was a very dark one. She had found the street without lights, and had fallen into this trench on one occasion. She did not consider the street safe, and had frequently gone round by another way to avoid it. John Adcock, clerk, residing at Hampden road, said that he recollected being called out in July last to assist Willing. He was, as it were, reclining on the roadway, and had been assisted by witness' mother before he got up to him. He considered this trench dangerous unless people were careful.
This closed the case for the plaintiff, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after introducing his case, called John Gillon, contractor, who said that he was a stonemason of 40 years' standing, and had large experience in carrying out works of this description. He was corporation contractor for repairs for 1885. He was employed on work at South-street, and had to excavate 10 in. from the surface of the road. On the 21st July, when the accident occurred, he had finished one side of the street. The other side was excavated and the concrete was put in for about 200ft. down. The concrete was in at Adcock's premises. At the top of the road the depth of the gutter was 6in. He did not consider the trench dangerous. The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL : It was not a man trap ?
Witness : No. His HONOR : You must remember it was a lady said that. (Laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I forgot. Witness said that the night in question was a moonlight, starry night. He sent his son down that night to light the lights, and when he came back he said he had done so. His reason for being certain that it was a moonlight night was because his son had drawn his attention to the fact, and suggested
Daily Telegraph Launceston, Thu 19 Nov 1885
WILLING v. MAYOR OF HOBART. This was a claim for £500 damages. Mr. A. I. CLARK (instructed by Clark and Simmons) for plaintiff, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL (instructed by Young, Walker, and All port) for defendant. The following jury was empanelled :Wm. Pretyman, Robt. Walker, E. Chancellor, Jas. Simmons, John Pearce, N. H. Propsting, and H. R. Brent. George Beedham, articled clerk, proved service of the notice of the action upon the corporation. Wm. Brown, surveyor, said he had made a survey of the length and breadth of South street, and produced a plan of it. 'C. W. S. James, city surveyor, said that two new gutters were made in South-street by defendant under his supervision. The work was commenced in May, and finished in August. In course of this work it was necessary to make excavations. The depth did not exceed 12in. and the breadth 2ft. 2in, There was some delay in carrying out the work in the month of July. Cross-examined : In giving the breadth, he included the kerbing, which was about 8in. Concrete was put in the channeling to the depth of 6in., so, that when it was laid, the depth of the gutter would only be about 6in, He believed that the concrete had been put in before the accident, Witness was a civil engineer and had had 20 years' experience in this sort of work, and he considered that the works were not of a dangerous character. Precautions were taken to guard them, such as lights at night, and some trestles were put up. The street was a narrow one and to have put up a hoarding would have impeded the traffic. The works were carried on, as it were, under the nose of plaintiff. The contractors in this case were Messrs. John Gillon and Sons, and they were very careful men.
Re-examined : The Police Act required that lights be kept burning at night ; that was part of the contract. Dr. Perkins said that he was called on the night of the 21st July to attend plaintiff. He was lying on a ---nor in his own house, suffering from injury to his leg left thigh was broken. He remained in bed about seven weeks. During plaintiff's illness witness discovered that he was suffering from double rupture, which he attributed to the accident. Witness discovered the rupture two or three days after the accident. He did not think that plaintiff could have had the rupture for a long time previously without knowing it. He saw the plaintiff on Tuesday. The fracture had united, but the left leg was shorter than the right leg by an inch. Plaintiff would require to wear a pair of crutches for some weeks. Plaintiff might be able to walk about without crutches or stick, but his gait would be embarrassed.
Cross-examined : He had never attended plaintiff previously. The rupture might have existed before the accident. Richard Willing, plaintiff in this notion, said that he was a butcher carrying on business at Hampden-road. He had been 30 years in business. He remembered being in his shop about 7 o'clock at night on the 21st July, and was on that occasion in his usual health. He was called out of his shop by some boys, who said, " Mr. Willing, your horse is out." He went round the corner into South-street. The night was dark, and he could not hear or see anything of the animal. He heard boys calling out that the horse had gone in again to the yard. His son came up, caught hold of him by the hand, and said "It is all right father." He had been standing near the edge of the open gutter, and when he turned round to go home he fell backwards into the drain. He called upon Mr. Adcock, a neighbour, to assist in getting him up, as he had broken his leg. Adcock, however, was not at home. Plaintiff's wife and Mr. Wilkinson, chemist, assisted him into his own house. He could not say whether there were any lights ; it was so dark that he could not see the trench. Plaintiff was attended by Dr. Perkins, and had not been able personally to attend to business since the accident. He estimated his loss at about £10 a week. At present his son, who was a carpenter, attended to the shop. It would take £3 a week to get a competent man to keep the shop. The doctor’s bill amounted to £11. Cross-examined : Witness was 72 years of ago. He had seen the work going on from day to day. He knew the trench was there, and he believed that he had fallen into his hole by the excitement of the moment throwing him off his guard. Plaintiff for some time previous to the accident had to use a stick when he went any distance. He was troubled with weakness of the knee, but had not suffered from paralysis. During his illness he did not got any competent man to attend to his business. He did not communicate in any way with the corporation as to his injuries, but instructed his solicitors. His HONOR : No doubt he will be willing to accept any offer from the corporation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A losing side generally is: he (plaintiff) is always "Willing," (Laughter.)
By the jury : There was a gas lamp at the corner of the street. F. Wilkinson, chemist, deposed to having assisted plaintiff on the night of tho accident. Ho found Willing lying in the trench, and he had to step in to get him out. When he stepped in he found the depth of the trench nearly up to his knee. There was no light that evening. He had seen a light on some evenings, but it was often blown out. He had occasion to pass up and down this street, and often found the trench without a light. He had seen two men on separate occasions fall into the trench. He had no reason to think those men were not sober.
His HONOUR : Did you do the good Samaritan on those occasions ? "
Witness : No ; they picked themselves up. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined : He inspected the trench afterwards. If the contractor said that the concrete was in the trench at the time of the accident he would not dispute it. Asked as to the measurement of the trench, he said that he had not measured it, but thought it was up to his knee. Pressed upon this point he said that the fact was that he had not anticipated that he would have been asked any questions as to the depth, and had taken no particular notice. He was positive that there were no lights that evening at the works. Charles Willing, son of plaintiff, said that he was a carpenter to business, but had been assisting his father in the butcher's shop for some months. He examined the trench on the night of the accident, and found the earthwork broken away. J. Pratt said that he lived in the locality where the accident occurred, and was aware of the works in progress in South street. He had occasion to go up and down South street after dark, and had frequently seen the works left without lights. He considered the excavations dangerous. The cuttings were deep at certain portions, and attention had been called to this dangerous thoroughfare in the Press.
Mrs McClimonts said that she lived in South-street 23 years ; generally this street was a very dark one. She had found the street without lights, and had fallen into this trench on one occasion. She did not consider the street safe, and had frequently gone round by another way to avoid it. John Adcock, clerk, residing at Hampden road, said that he recollected being called out in July last to assist Willing. He was, as it were, reclining on the roadway, and had been assisted by witness' mother before he got up to him. He considered this trench dangerous unless people were careful.
This closed the case for the plaintiff, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after introducing his case, called John Gillon, contractor, who said that he was a stonemason of 40 years' standing, and had large experience in carrying out works of this description. He was corporation contractor for repairs for 1885. He was employed on work at South-street, and had to excavate 10 in. from the surface of the road. On the 21st July, when the accident occurred, he had finished one side of the street. The other side was excavated and the concrete was put in for about 200ft. down. The concrete was in at Adcock's premises. At the top of the road the depth of the gutter was 6in. He did not consider the trench dangerous. The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL : It was not a man trap ?
Witness : No. His HONOR : You must remember it was a lady said that. (Laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I forgot. Witness said that the night in question was a moonlight, starry night. He sent his son down that night to light the lights, and when he came back he said he had done so. His reason for being certain that it was a moonlight night was because his son had drawn his attention to the fact, and suggested
