Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-05-07

CIRCUIT Court, Judge Oiin.-On Saturday,
Mr.. HeIrIck. for the plaintiff, closed his argu-
ment in the case of Mrs. Hutton agt the Wash
lnEton and Georgetown Railroad Company,
and the case was given to the jury with the
following instructions:
II the cOmpanys negligence contributed SUBJ
s,antaly 70 the alleged injury, and If it appears
from the evidence that said injury was sus-
tanned by the plaintiff, the defendant is liable
Lor all damages arising from sue injury. The
oeiendant is an incorporated company; and can
act only through persons employed as its
agents; hence II ia responsible for all the acts
oohe or omitted to be done by its employees
while acting ostensibly in the line OF their
employment. The only ground on which the
present action can be maintained is negligence
on the part Of the defendant. In contempla-
ton OF law, negligence means the doing or
emitting To do what ordinarily prudent man
would not DO, or omit to do, in a matter in
which be Is employed OF engaged. The measure
OF care and diligence required in the present
case Is that which the most cautious of men
would exercise when the limbs and lives Of
people are committed to his care The care
and skill involved should be In proportion 10
the magnitude OF the interests involved. II in
the exercise of this degree of prudence the
evidence shows that the persons who had the
management of the horse car ought to have
seen the steam tram IN time TO have avoided It.
or If il appears hat they did see the said train
the defendant Is liable for whatever Ipiury the
plaintiff has sustained
IL II Is found that there has been such negli-
gence- the question will remain, what damages
haS the plaintiff sustain ed by reason of this
emitted TO full and fair remuneration for the
injuries received and nothing more
On the question of the right ofa married wo-
man TO sue in her own name. the theory of the
lsw Is that she cannot do this without Joining
with her husband, but there is an exception TO
the rule In thIs: that when i married woman
does bring suit in her own name, and might
properly sustain the action. but for the act OF
overture, she is entitled 10 recover in such
csSe unless the defendant plead such coveture
IN abatement The injury, if.any, in thiscase
Nss TO the person ofthe plaintiff, and she might
not plead IN Abatement her coverture, a wife
may sue alone.
In reference to the claim of $1,000 for ex-
Penses incurred for nursing, medical atten-
dance, nc, the Court instructs the Jury that
u she was married woman AZ the time of the
injury, she could incur no such liabilities, as
the part OF her husband, but not on her part
IL not married At the time Of the injury, she is
entitled TO recover whatever expenses she ne
cessaTily incurred for board. medical atten-
dance, &c. The relation of marriage NAV be
proved without establishing the fact of a mar
rage ceremony, if the parties were known to
cOnaost together, or were commonly reputed
and represented Themselves as man and
wife.
The jury were instructed TO make a sealed
verdict should they agree
This morning the sealed verdict of the iury
wSs opened and entered tor the plaintiff, as
sessing damages at $1,000 Merrick and Rid
die for plaintiff, Bradley and Bradley and
DayIdge for defense.