Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1870-12-20
Suits for Damages against the Cor.
pOratfOn.

Ch,,c oediEst he Cify-Ddmde,s Claimed for
injuries Sustained by Falling DOUH an En-
tdnkment-The Lar iH the Case as Lad DoUa
BY Judge HamPhrels- Verdict for DEFENDANT
On Saturday, as stated in TsE STARS court
report, in the case Of j. W. Chew against the
corporation OF wsshington-action for damages
for injuries sustained by falling down an en-
bankment at the corner of LIST street east and ID
street SOUTH tried in the Circuit Court, Judge
humphreys-the jury found q verdict for the
corporation. The evidence was TO the effect
that on the night OF the 21th of August 1850,
the plaintiff fell down the embankment caused
10y the cutting through of the street, and was
severely injured. After the testimony had been
given as 10 the condition OF the work at the
Tune OF the accident, and the act of Councils
authorizing the work had been read, Judge
Humphreys charged the jury as follows:
CHARGE OF JUSTICE HUMPHREYS.
"Gentemen, IL you find a verdict for the plain
TN, you Will assess such damages as the evil
dence shows he is entitled to. II you find the
tact TO be that the plaintiff received the iniu-
rles complained OF, at a place where a street
was being opened and graded by the Corpora
ton, and not az place where a street had he
fore been opened up by the Corporation; and ii
you further find the fact TO he that the injuries
we're received by the plaintiff at Tins while
the Corporation was having the work done, OF
opening up said street, and before the work was
left on; in other words. If YOU find the facts 10
he that the corporation begun, in March, April
OF May, 1859, TO have the street, where the in
Iuries were received, opened up and graded:
and that on the q TIA of August, lSs59-the night
mat tne injuries are alleged TO have been re-
celyeo-the work OF opening up aud grading
saidstreet had not been completed. and work
had not been stopped from day to day: aud IL
you further lind tue fact to be, that in Febru-
airy, 1869, the city authorities adopted an ordi-
nance, and published said ordinance, for open-
ing up and grading said street; aud il YOU far
Their lind the fact TO be that plaintiff resided
near TO the place where said injuries
were received, in February, 1863, and continued
10 reside near there till after the injuries in
August. 1869; and ii you further mud the fact
10 be that the place of the Injuries was in A way
over which the plaintiffs usual business did NOT
call him 10 go; and II you further lind the fact
to be. that from April or May, lS69, to the p tn
OF August, 1869, the plaintiff was engaged i'm the
business and occupation Of a barber, and that
he went from his home 10 distance in
The city TO his shop, TO his daily occupa-
ton, and that the place where he received
the injuries was not in over the way
from his home TO his business; and il YOU
further ind the fact to be. that from the time
work was begun by the city authorities on said
street up to the time Of the inquiries the said
street where the injuries occurred had not been
thrown open TO and had not been used by the
public as public aud usual pass and highway:
and If you further find the fact be that the time
the city occupied and consumed in openino mn
and 81 aiding said street was not an unreasona-
bic time accoI ding TO the evidence; and III Won
further lind that the plaintiffs ordinary and
usual bushes. did not require him To- use the
way over the place where the injuries were re-
celyed AZ convenient pass way, and that he
could by reasonable caution and care have
avoided the dangerous place; il you find these
facts you Will return verdict for defendant"
The plaintiff has filed motion for a new trial.