, 1866-01-31
BECxlEY vs.. THE CITY or CHICAGO.
Inc Charge Of Hon. Thomas Drammond
10 the Jury In the U. 9. Court.


=. Ge most interesting legal cases which has
eu4e uoae Attracted public attention in this
city has besn that Of Bect]ey -. IN. civ or t,bi
eaGo. commenced On the 2Ah Inst. The charee IN
"niea VIC present herewith. The testimony in Tho
Gee tect lof1n IN cIteuao the early life an. h.,o.
Of the plaintiff, Edwin H. Beekley. wbich 49, -.
little relevancy 70 the iasues OF .he e,,e ~, 80,
showing how be came to be m artist of ,rk.,a'S.
eogeIr1 M nq M,r nov H1oey be served hi,
came hetc ftom Wisconsin anu wa4 IN, n,nr.a u. ne
ornamental painter Of locomotives oY ths tbir.nna N
as,oaS Z ss
steps toward founding hers School Of DssIenJ
AZ tt!s time be met with the accident In con.e-
2asqss Tnsh The suis sssa.t hs e: dams
Wisconsin the suft IVES brought bef5re the Cn,ted
stsies Con1t The case VAS Tried At the October,
iS teE,1 4f !hs :oart, md sesd'ct Eendared fot
being made by defendant, and duly argued. the
court signlded that u the plaintid would enter a
rGnkttT of f6,0S1l the motion would be refused.
The present trial.
On Monday morning the court tJudsc Drum
nondl rnre tho following Instructions to the jury:
The city Of Cheaeo to recover damages for an injury
sustained BY the plaintiff In consequence Of t1ii.
t9Isssh an opening light in the sidewalk in tho Gil
There ts no great controversy upon the ma,erisl
facr. building was IN pructse Of erection In The
southeast corner n q Raadolph and Clark street, aud
pied, with the consent Of The city. By the owner Of
the properly on tho conner and hts contractors,
The laes:ing on The sidewalk oa Clark street. hid
been nearly completed; bur the ra1se1 pcrslon,
nearest to the bnilding, YVES he'd; and there
vas an open space there On the night Of The 18th OF
Thcsu had been IN addsess at Bryan Hall On that
eTsntnR, By VI. Ceolge Thompson, and he pIaiu-
Ht WEE present, md In comm. rom tho Hall, after
the meeting was over. and when = considerable
number Of persons were On the sidewalk the plain
uf, passing along, close to tha building, stumbled
into ths open tpaee near the south end OF tho new
building, md, talhng on some stone. in the base-
ment beneath, Nas very seriously injured. The
night was quito dark. and d1.zzllns 1n,u was tal-
tte at the time, and the plainuG was using his
umbrella. m It was not far fsou ten o'clock whun
The city hls ihc control and care Of the Streets
MEen Improvements AT made, and 1t becomes
Necessary % 10 oecgp5 part Of he street. ii pres
d,tions upon which the etreet may be 90 occupied.
II consequently tee duty Of The g II to keep the
streets md sidewalks safs, for The. pas-
duty IL neglected, and thereby anyone is injured,
the city may BE- liable for the damage. II tId-.
ws. we} Z esinE aia ao"n e IN s1eayston made
reht of lie pnblie should be inpslsed II no tustnef
n5.1,. Ssn !. .non nan;9lse,e s sS II
and more especially ia he night lime. '
In order 10 maintain the ncucn, 1t Is necessary 10
was the result or the negligence Of the defendant
and e!en then, II it .honld also appear that ihe
plaintiff ~as himself guilty Of any negligence,
%nien IN my !ast sense, contributed 10 the Injury,
The INST point, therefore, to be determined, Is a.
to The negligence Of !he city Was there such neg
nRe1ee on the part Of .he city, 70 render lesa
y responsible to the pIainttG prouiieI The plaintiff
himself were Gec from fault And, as to this, do
otth1nk there can bs much doubt. The wotkmen
m
eoniIrctot.. Or Ar Mecarby, de ownes q Il 5 Tbs
s, building yet II one sense .hey are agents Of tho
and subject to The or1ers OF the city that they wesc
acting and they we're negligent In that work, and
et yPsn spsess u The ,s ;s,aeMals without proper
u Law !or the consequences Of such negligence
The ceiendan: called the contractor, and some Or
placed .,hefe At times, and that The insiructions
were always TO place them. But the po.1t1eo e.1-
dence is !oo strong to leaye npy doubt that lhi~
occasionally were OF questionable utility; and It Ii
certain that these open spaces were often left mn
guarded, about The time Of tho accident, and that
evening of ,he a of NoTeSet M si IT. Z Tne faet as
eecms 10 haye been that the woskmen were not
alMa{a' ,S' Wiling to tske the trouble ct placing
DID not always eee to tt--a fault, a. re ali
Fq ct thote aR, R9kng IN hls ciy
s-~ASAo
tbe street there bsonght to ihe notice OF he DO
lice, some ofwhom state that they caye khe warui.
to ire headWoKkman but this last IL denied By the
con Or rasher bis 1taienent IL thai he has
recollection oflt.
1t aso seems clear that the light on the corner of
Clark and Randolph streete, was not burning that
p2Et Of the uty. o- ''
rs 81 ne5t Question 70 se answered by the }ay H.
Which contributed to the iniury1
The plaintiff was comparative sts1ngaE in The
ci9, md be informs u .he was not aware Of the
ever his duty to use reasonable care and diligence
IN passing along the sidewalk. and Il, By ordinary
@ sate be MIGHT hare avo[ded the dangerous place,
70 the fall, and consequently he cannot recover
Whether OF not be was guilty OF such negligence.
sha says & e sas p s v 9S1; S1
eeztan Light the number Of people IN the streets,
and the knowledge Of them which the pla,ntlif
nary care-such as prudent and caresai mau would
to hs question does il depend wheiner G. not % she
II the deiendanihas been guilty OF negligence, aud
the pIa1ntN free from the fault then the action is
naintainahle, for the injury be has suffered; and
amount of damages shall BE- given 10 The plaintiff!
Il Is sometimes said thar in actions for damages
a1nonnt IS exclusively within The discretion Of tbe
Jury. 1hfs, f1 \ certain sense, Il true
be cnntroed n speh c,sas h1 AZ 5afJ J!Jn stoula
ar,t hV so,1n ,r.,on ~ ~ ;e;.,,. y tns e.!aence,
tully weigh and consider the Instructions Of the
eo;ns ~ 81 pGn ~ N eaer easss Aers passion
more key 10 ed bs m;na ,nc1 naa ~ ana ~
wrong than t1eht conclu:ton. While, therefore,
- ~ onMn any pseess sn'e as the measure
lav, Jeu would be bound, II von think The plaintiff
Is entitled 10 recover ret Viii refer 10 rome fac.
s ads m M ,as1 4, @n .asT witch may
ADd T. The arst place hardly h!nk shis Is prop
snsh ~. ~ r. os punl.ate aamaCes fnat -
nent ,rir - II ~ 1 ~ oe gen n oy Wy punish
,hs Ge3sa9 ona, fcmqseney @ os O. ace "a Inc Part
ot,et,g sns Is ~ aau Ma .nS souG Hcea6le
Il NAV ~ tsd ii sn1a st,1s ao ho suca mke
= rs snnua ,, oe y oWed. bnt y thls case
" tha saae eassa Va r. ose man msse
49, - ~ H. htI7i ~ =. LIZ @ sut"saGtor OF
~ at. ~ e1e.1sso osef his Past Of
tha .ft :. ,hy ~ ha'; tnT - nv oMegIs o. ne
sssnn,sj IA, .hs,s sIoum na,g i nn. II nnu1 ne
sRn. ssen On thelpsrt o. ths et{ officers. 70 leave
AK open On tnat n1ent, io1 the purpose Of
The nn7 I'M =, ,,e ,n,rr~ x,,,,sa ,x ~,
1I,d = ~ y soeMH g tpo medeh te,slnony
5au iaa y 10 not sunI!oselea NO cone vas hEoken,n.
Il nrct51eed eonc1sp'an ~ r. @ n5asebIt
sne1s M - No ~ ~ - III ..t's. ahu HoSA Sun
1otr he his " n.e ~ e,na ,us sn5 T. MI essa
neSirsI xf,nasss. th1nIs ~ - , "AHE, Ana IL t4o
he 1riii ns.sr -ac0vs 49,, ~ ~ tsS p1vuaeV ~
Hs l. nov sbont as vrars ~ 10 ~ e1I ~ ~ ~
Innsars IL ynnns 1sn ~ rnHi rh,,ctar ~ "a ar
,rumiae and Of mora ihsn ave,;ee tnfe'II1sn.e 1n1
H,s nrnfe .ion l. hit ~ s,oSts1
nm. ard. more nsrticnias1v, of nersnectire dEw
ng- Some specimens Of h1s dfawire have been
2reeented to is. apd feyeral artists have hccn *
ue;i that be Ia rood desf of taipnt IN hia n,otas
ION. It il manife:t, rom he testimony md
be nature OF the tuiury. thai ihe n{,lnntr
aqye fhe symnat6y ~ a1l vim knnv nm IN
houeh The law gives compeu.a,lon. under ccrtatn'
fh,ie nropsr euhEect nT cnnsde.atiSI y Pat G
deuuatc reuiuueratton can be 5esfowe1. t,r nj tho
anna mai nav Tnrk 1he hoiv ~ tho srs-s. ~