Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1858-12-03


usual CUSTOM far as to publish the entire case,
that our citizens may the extent of the protec-
tion they have against the negligence Of our city
authorities in regard to the highways, bridges,
streets, &c under their charge and care:
X. C. WsighfNGH agt. CoTPorafioH of Wash
isgfOs The declaration was In the usual form,
charging the Corporation with the duty of keep
ing in repair the bridge over Rock creek at X
sweet; and that, on the 10th May, lisa, the said
bridge was In a dangerous, unsafe and rickety
condition, by reason of the default and negligence
OF the said defendants; and that the said plaintiff
was then and there, to-wit, on the day and wear
aforesaid, at the county aforesaid, lawfully pass
ing and crossing over Said bridge in a certain
common and ordinary vehicle and while So
passing and crossing over said bridge by reason
ofits rickeiy, unsafe and insecure cordition, and
the default and ligence of the said defendants,
then and there broke, gave way and fell in; by
Tpason Of which said breaking. giving way and
falling in, the plaintiff was injured, &c.
The plea was: Not Guilty. On the trial, the
following bill Of exceptions was taken:
On the trial Of this cause, the PLAINTIFF to main
tain the Issue on his part joined, read from the
charter ofthe city Of Washington dt being agreed
that either party might read therefrom as evil
dence such parts as be might deem pertinent to
the fssue> the thirteenth section of the charter of
1S2O, as follows:
'AHd Be u further enacted That the lew cou,,
OF the county OF Washington, in the District OF
Columbia, shall not possess the power of xxess
ing any tax on property in the city of Washing
ton; nor shall the Cooperation of the sal CITY be-
ooilg6d to contribute in any q amer towards fhe
expenses or expenditures of said court excsDt Tor
the one half part Of the expenses incurred on &C
count OF t6e o. peans couit the Office of the coro
n-r, the Jail Of said county and the opsnInv ,nd
repairing Of roads In the county of Wa,bi5cton
east OF Rock Creek, leading directly to the cIty
OF was bluEtoD; but the said Corporation shall
have the sole control and management of tho
bridge across or over Rock Creek at the tern,i
nation OF street north, and shalt be chargeabIe
with the expense Of keeping the same in repaiT
and rebuilding IL when necessary
And then, again, evidence to show that tho
plaintiff then and now was a citizen of said citv
was returning from Georgetown IN tbs sa1d H.
on the day OF May, 1854 and ridino In one .;
the emnlbuses running between said cities and
while, crossing the said bridge in said omni
ousI WIN tne Pialntii therein, was precipitated
INTO Rock Creek, whereby he narrowly escapsd
drowning) was seriously bruised his len arm
broken, his left hand crushed insomuch that ~.
said hand has been rendered useless for life
mat ne was confined thereby TO the house for a
long time, under the of the best med icaI AZ :
tendance he could procure aud during the Whole
ei seld period Of time suffered great bodily pain
And thereupon the defendants offered and vzvs
evidence to show that in The rear 1919 a c.stain
ordinance was passed by the authorities of said
city as follows: Here follows the act of the Cor
po alton authorizing the construction of IN S~on
bridge over Rock Creek at the western termina-
tion of X street
That In conformity with said ordinance
committee consisting of the Mayor OF the Citv
OF Washington and two practical and scienIisc
workers IN iron were appointed that the D an
Va edlu oltuse was approved by said Co,nmfftss
ana that they acted In coed faith and with a view
10 the erection Of = bridge adequate in plan min
ciple, strength, SoliditY and cOnstructio, 10 ths
RuIpoSes LOT which said bridge required
That The OPiaiOn CT scientific men wa, taken hv
said committee to the plan or princinIes =,
said bridge, aEd that the same was erected In
EOoa Iaith ana with the belief tina; the same was
IN plan and principle, and in strength soItdi.v
ana Construction, suitable ard ADEQUATE for N
purposes for which 10 was rtuuf- ed. th,, In,
me materials and work on said brid &c were of
nF Dissertation md .F,,II..
the P:oSTess Of is erection by the agents 81 Tho
oeiSndani>, ana that the giving way OF saId
bfoSe IN consequence (which tie alleged dam
ages were sustained was the result solely of So
Cloent and a defect ia the plan of said 1brid,...
That said bridge was completed in the sp,inU of
$50, and its strength and capacity were ON its
completion carefully tested; that on the - av
OF" the said defendants passed a certain otb.r
ordinance. as follows IAeTe follows the Cor
Poration act authorizing the appointment of a
commissioner and Inspector
Under which - was apDoin,sd co,,.,,,ts
siOner Of the First Ward OF aid citv in ,.hinh
The eastern abutment Of said bridge was buir-
the same being navigable stream and a Oreats}
Part OF The said bridge being Ley ond the rorDo-
Fate Iimitsi that said commissioner DISCHARGED
bis duil-s Connected with the inspection 81 Nd
o'luse, ana never eSeertalned that the same was
IN amy manner unsafe, defective or out of renafr
and never reported any Gnsoundness drfect or
want OF repair TO the defendants who bsd na
hotce through their said officer or Otherwise
that said bridge Was at or before the accident
unsafe, unsound, or defective either in DrincinIa
or Iaet. Tne defendants further produced syi
oehce 20 show mat there was not any indication
at or before said accident that tn. sad hTido.
was unsafe, UHSound o defective in pIsu nm
ciple or In fact, and had been duly patented bv
toe GoveInment; and rested
Ana lbeieuPOn the plaintiff, to rebuff the evil
d nee so offered on the part Of the defendant.
gave evidence TO show that the same Sci,nti6r
men, whose opinion was so, as aforesaid taken by
the defendants, stated to the defendants Al IN.
time he was consulted that the DIan az tha ia
bridge was lOi feet, and they submitted the rI,n
70 him, aud he said the principle was correct but
u would not hold out Indefinitely with iron
bridges; that the said bridge i, an iron hTidgs
CONSTRUCTED ON the plan of Rider, patented } and
built BY Rider himself; but the arch Of said bIidge
was higher than had sver been attempted IA
single span OF ITO feet, and when ider had CON
udcted 20 build This bridge, he objected to- and
Reconstructed against, building tn. arch of the
bridge Sd high, but the defendants required II TO
he done in oder TO accommodate the passage OF
canal boats, the said bridge being Constructed
over the basin Of the Chesa peake and Ohio Canal
SohstIuStso' Ia the said creek and said Rider
believes the said bridge fell by reason of the said
arch Their Of being raised high
That they further gave evidence by one Of the
sara committee that he had not been consulted
originally about the plan of said bridge but Al
that time he believed II 10 be a good plan h. 4.
now satisfied from further study a1d ex perience
mat u was essentially, radically d, fective He
furtheI gave evidence 10 show by another skill
1ul ana scientific worker in iron that after this
Dfldge feIi ne was employed by the Corporation
TO examine certain other bridges bull, by said
L
cept that the arch was much less and the snan
40. near so great, and his opinion was al once
FORMED That there Is in the plan an Inherent vice
which makes every such bridge NOT hoyizo,t1I
unsafe and insecure, and as the arch is increased
that Insecurity j. increased; that within vear
aitef the said bridge was rebuilt, the defendants
changed the approach to said bridge Al each end
by raising the same aud extending il upon the
bridge, aud the:eby adding above three ton, TO
its original weight.
And further gave evidence by said commits
siOneT of the FIRST Ward that be crossed ia
ofldse, Few days before IT fell, and il was SO
usmulous and shook so Violently that he W..
aPPIehenSive II would fall; and further evidence
oy divers persons. that, for several DAYS before
The SAID bridge Eel, they Lad observed tua' sew
eTal OF the braces Of said bridge Were broke,
and some OF the wedges had fallen out and the
bridge was loose; shook greatly when Carriages
passed over IL; and rested.
AMI the eupon the defendants prayed the Court
TO instruct the jury as follows: THAT after the
whole OF the evidence aforesaid, the plaintiff is
not entitled TO Recover in this action y
Which instruction the Court pave. and IA N.