The Davenport daily gazette. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1869, 1857-09-28

To oil intcnts and purpose The Rock l.
land Bridge Compan, have gained tie VIC.
tory in the Chicago trial aud the bridge will
be permitted o. stand We make thu
announcement with great qualification, and
only rcgre, tina, the Jury dbl not bring IN
esni.0 against the plaintiff II appear
that the jury were unable e. ser.c, hut that
a.ae were CIR the defendant AMI 'Lfss for tie
plaintiff, or for awarding damage One Of
oar sitizcns convcr~cd with Capt. Huri. tic
PRINCIPAL plaintiff in tile case. before the
trial closed lie appeared entirely satisfied
with the Jury. lie said five or ~ were
from Chicago or neighborhood, but the bal.
ance were from Southern Illinois, Ih,- was
the came ~ stating, that II these five or six
were probably partial to the bridge side the
others were ~ likely to be prrjuaiccd
against IL. After this result III three to one
Of the jury against the plaintiffs, with the
heavy expenses ia which they have been
involved, we have but little thought that
they will continue the case, and therefore
1T least till something contrary appears.
shall believe the vexed question settled
We have no disposition to exult over tie
parties directly engaged in the prosecution
Of this case-but We shall permit no feelings
of delicacy TO prevent us throwing the re-
suit Of this trial into the face of that for
midable moncyod and commercial interest
centercd at 81. Louis, which has been
actively engaged ever since the completion
Of the great structure which spans the river
Il this point, in endeavoring TO destroy IL
They have most signally failed in their OBJ
iect. The bridge still stands, and il MI
stand, unless destroyed by accident or mob
violence. We have AWAY. believed that
no jury Of common sense men, with the real
facts OF the case before them, could give a
decision which by any inference or implica-
tion, night pronounce this bridge a serious
obstruction 70 navigation. Most certainly
the evidence given before the jury in this
case, so FAR n facts not opinions are con-
cerned, could not justify the jury in render
ing verdict Of damages to the plaintiffs.
when this decision would have pronounced
the bridge such an obstruction. We have
published the evidence having direct bear
ing upon this point, and We have published
enough 20 prove all the positions taken b,
the Gasstts in reference To the bridge, were
correct. 10 view Of this testimony, we are
now more emphatic than ever in stating that
this bridge 10 no serious obstruction 10 the
navigation Of the river.
We regret not having space for Judge
McLean's charge to the Jury, which Is very
long. Il closes thus:
Upon the whole, gentlemen, | feel b,,ind
20 NY, IL you believe from the evidence, the
piAintins' witnesses were not mistaken in
regard TO the cross currents aud cdies In
the draw, which endangered it, passae. by
steamboats,, and that there was no want 81
due care and skill in the management Of the
Efle Alton IN attempting 10 pas through
the draw which resulted in her total Loss.
you will find for the plaintiffs the value nl
the boat including the insurance money.
which, by agreement Of the counsel. may b.
considered ~ part Of the damages To he
recovered.
But il you shall believe from the esl-
dence, that there are no currents or eddies
in the draw, which form material obstrue-
tion To the pa~aee Of il by boats which ply
upon the river, and that the Etfie Alton, IN
attempting To pass the draw, was not man
aged with that degree Of care and skill
which prudent and cunpetent officers would
be expected TO exercise, in such a case you
will find for the defendant.
In the face Of this charge and the testi
mony oGered, the wonder is not that three
10 one Of the jury favored the defendants
but that Ill did not in ten minutes consul
tation give their verdict in favor Of the de
PENDANTS.