The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1858-05-22

FAST DRlvtNG AND Law or PCBLr ROirs
A suit f-r damages was tiled in the Cdur
for Chester county last week which posscsSc,
some interest for the public The plaintiff had
been at longwood Yearly Meeting. lie was
~ buggy. Shortly after leaving to 90 home
lie was followed by several young men with
horses who it was alleged made such noise
us to alarm plaintiffs horse. The horse kick
| cd and broke his leg, and had to be killed
The suit was brought to recover the value OF
the horse The plaintiff alleged that his
horse was alarmed at the noise and hafloing
OF the young III became FESTIVE, kicked,
broke his leg and fell. The defence denied
the noise and alleged that plaintiffs horse
was fra"tious, kicking horse, and therefore
unsafe and mruly. Commenting on this
point, the Court remarked that where horse
Is driven which generally takes right, when
civil attempt is made to pass him, and al
injury occurs by the conduct of the fractions
horse, no damages can be recovered for such
injury. a man may ride or drvca horse not
well brokcn-hc may ride or drive horse Of
bad habits and unruly disposition does
it ut his own risk and must take the consc-
quencts that flow flom such habits and dis
position. The main question in this case.
however, is. "was the horse injured by the
misconduct of the defendants - His honor
reviewed the testimony Of the witnesses
Was the injury the consequence Of the aIledg
cd bad conduct Of the defendants! a man
may drive upon the high road, and may pass
another, in an orderly peaceable manner, and
will not be Liable for injuries from vicious
or unruly horses. One point OF the defence
was that the plaintiff was making trial of
speed Of his horse and therbv participated IN
the dlsoracrly conduct. On this point, the
Court charged the jury, that if a party who
receives The injury was ut the time liable to
ctnSurc for Illegal con luct, (herby contrlhu-
ting to the injury.) he cannot sustain action
for damages. lie cannot be Unidentified for
losses resulting from his own conduct. A
man has right to pursue his journey at his
own pl aStrc, and he may not be mol,s ed on
the hiGhroad LA man enter npon trial Of
speed, and thereby sustain injury he cannot
recover.
Judge llaincs made some judicious remarks
to the jury, respecting the general deport-
ment Of persons using horses on the HIGH
road the rights OF individuals and their liza
hihtics, which we copy. He said" | will
he,c remark as general principle, that the
public highways are open to the free use Of
every man " h0 chooses either as buSiuts; or
pleasure may dictate, to travel thereon. No
one has a wight to interrupt the free travel Of
another, or to force him from the road, or to
render it unsafe or dangerous. No man, or
set of men, either for pleasure or mischief,
whatever the motive which may govern them.
have right TO use the highways in such a
manner as to render it dangerous to another
10 travel thcreon.-lf they do so and injury
is incurred, the parties who have rendered
the passage dangerous are liable to answer
in damages" These are important and sal
utary truths. On a lhioughfare where men
women and children, pass and rcpass daily
and hourly safety and security to travel
are imlcratIvcly demanded, and so
far as the laws Of the STATE are enabled to sc
cure them, they do it. An action will there
fore he sustained whore the proof shows dam
are. by the wanton, improper, and illegal
conduct of another on the public highway.
This case was argued in a very elaborate
manner. and Il great number of witnesses
were examined. Mr.. Darlington, counsel for
defendants, took exceptions 10 the charge of
TIC Court.
Verdict Cor Plaintiff, $50.
Lancastcr Examiner.