THESE days we often hear about courts handing out large amounts of money in claims for damages covering a wide area of issues.

So how different was it in the past?

Here is a civil case from January 1931 as reported by the Northwich Guardian.

At the Northwich County Court before Judge Smylie, a bookmaker from London Road claimed from a builder of Hayhurst Street the sum of £10, being £6 the value of a lounge suit and £4 the value of a rainproof coat, alleged to have been ruined by milk caused by the defendant's motor lorry being negligently driven by his servant, whereby a collision took place with a milk float.

Mr J Keough appeared for the plaintiff while Mr H Moss represented the defendant.

Mr Keough said the claim was for damages arising out of an occurrence in London Road on October 9, 1929.

He said there would be no dispute about the negligence and the issue was simply one of damages.

The plaintiff was walking along London Road in the direction of Northwich.

He was on the right hand side of the road and saw a milk float coming towards Davenham.

As he got near, the defendant's motor lorry came up, being driven so negligently that it struck the vehicle and upset a large quantity of milk on the plaintiff who was walking on the footpath, soaking his clothing through.

Mr Keough said the question left to be decided was whether the claim of £10 was reasonable or not.

The lounge suit was purchased by the plaintiff on August 16, 1929 when he bought two for 12 guineas.

He purchased the raincoat on July 31, 1929 paying four guineas for it.

The suit at this time was almost as good as new as he wore the two alternatively.

The clothes had since been valued and the lounge suit was said to be worth 7s 6d and the coat 5s and 6d.

Mr Keough said the plaintiff was a bookmaker in the district and he understood it was necessary for him keep up a smart appearance.

The clothes would not wet clean without shrinking and they would be of no use to the plaintiff.

He was not claiming anything for the inconvenience although he could have done so.

Defending Mr Moss said he was not in a position to dispute that there was negligence on the part of his client's driver.

All that they wanted to know was the proper amount which the court thought he should pay the plaintiff.

The clothes had been worn a short time and he understood the milk stains could have been removed.

His Honour gave judgement for the amount claimed with costs.