The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1871-01-28

AGte Cummings as. the Orange and
Alexandria Railroad Compony.--We noticed
yesterday the fact of this case (which wss
brought for damages for ejectment from carl.
having been given to a jury in the United
States Circuit Court. After we went to prcs7,
the jury returned With verdict for the plan.
tin OF 3, 100, instead of the ST, 500 claimed in
the declaration.
The following are the Instructions given the
jury by Judge Bond:
II the jury believe from the evid. nee that the de.
iendant wasa corporation in the State of Virginia.
engaged in the transportation OF p4s-engets for hire
between the city of Alexandria ana The CITY of
LynchbuTg, in Virginia, and that the plaintiff pur-
che ed ticket st Few York, from person author
lied to sell the same, which entitled her to rs ever
the rosd OF defendant in tAe c gs of defendant an
that the peintG while ted in the carriage Of lie
defendant upon its railto.d, which carriice was
provided there by the defendant for the ttsaspoft-
uont OF the hoidefs OF such tickets ss that with
wch the plaintiff was provided was iorcibly elected
tberelrom by the employees of the defendant and
without any mistiemo lDor her part and be ause
OF her color only then the plaintiff is entitled to re
cover such damages the jury may find se suffere
by such foroible ejectment, and in estimsinr sucb
dAmase1 the jury not confined TO the ac;ual loss
of the plaintiff, but taking into consideration ,he
whole circumstances OF the case, may give exemplary
damages.
Aud ii the Jury believe from the evidence. that
the sad forcible eieosment took place s,ter tbe
carriage OF sid defendant had pas1ed from the road
IL.
H., mentioned in the testimony, and had pa-.Iy
pessed over the road Of the defendant and while It
was standing in the depot of the deie9Gaut and
while the engineer and brake3men EMPLOYED by me
defendant were upon the train then the iury have
right TO find rom the evidence that the train we
the tram of the Orange, Alexandria and Name 9sls
Iairoad, notwithstlpdipg they find that the csrs
ductor OF the defendant had not taken possession or
charge thereof.
Ihe following instructions were asked to be
given the jury by the defendants counsel, and
the plaintiffs attorneys did not object:
If the removal of the plaintiff from one ar Into
another ear OF the SINE train, the 10th October
ieo,, at Alexandria Va, was effected uadcr the fol-
lowing circumstances, TO wit;
L. While the train was under the controI of the
conductor OF the Wellington and Alexandria rail.
road company and before it came under the control
OF the conductor of the Orange and Alexandra rail-
road company or
2. While The train was stationary at Alesandria.
before the conductor of the Orange and Alexandril
railroad company took charge thereof and tho re
moval waI effected without the knoWledoe or an.
pIoval of the conductor other officer or agent or
servant OF the Orange and Alexandria railroad com
pany; o.,
8. If the removal was effected by auv other person
or persons than tho conduct or, or other officer or
servant OF the Orange and Alexandria railroad com
p.ny and without their knowledge or approval;
then, in either of the supposed the defendants
the Orange and Alexandria railroad company are NOT
responsible for such removal
Ii the piantih, in tie conveyance from Alexandria
~ Ly nonDfsi on ueienuantJ railroad on the 10th
Octooer, 1869, occupied a seat in car in which
smoking ives allowed, aid in which vulgar Language
was at times used by passengers on The trip and if
the conductor of the train Comprising said carl
found the plaintiff in such in the early part Of
the trip, and was frequently palsng in and ont of
sad car on the trip, and the plaintiff knowing the
conductor 50 to bo frequently in and out Of the car
wholly neglected or failed through the whole trip to
inform the conductor of the said smoking or vulgar
language, and Iailed to make any complaint to him
or to ak any relief hereiom, TEEN the psintff is
not entitled to recoverlrom the defendants for said
Cause, any damages, or any more than nominal dam
ages unless the jury should further find that such
want OF complaint was produced by the alarrs fear,
or reasonable apprehension of the plaintiff, caused
by the conduct of the defendants It's officers, SER
wants, or employees