The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-01-30
LOCAL MATTERS.

The LATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE IN THE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoUET.-The fol-
lowing instructions, given to the jury by
Judge Bond in the case Of Kate Cummings
Us. The Orange and Alexandria Railroad
Company, will be read with interest: eff
the jury believe, from the evidence, that
the defendant wasa corporation in the State
Of Virginia, engaged in the transportation
of passengers for hire between the city of
Alexandria and the city of Lynchburg, in
Virginia, and that the plaintiff purchased
a ticket at New York, from per
son authorized to sell the same, which
entitled her to pass over the road
of defendant, in the cars Of defendant, and
that the plaintiff, while seated in the car
riage of the defendant, upon its railroad,
which carriage was provided there by the
defendant for the transportation Of the hold
ers Of such tickets as that with which the
plaintiff was provided, was forcibly elected
therefrom by the employees of the defend
ant, and without any misdemeanor on her
part, and because of her color only, then
the plaintiff is entitled to recover such dam
ages as the jury may find she suffered by
such forcible ejectment, and in estimating
such damages the jury are not confined to
the actual loss of the plaintiff, but taking
into consideration the whole circumstances
Of the case, may give exemplary damages.
And If the jury believe from the evidence
that the said forcible ejectment took place
after the carriage of said defendant had
Washington and Georgetown railroad, men,
toned in the testimony, and had partly
passed over the road of the defendant, and
while it was standing in the depot of the
defendant, and while the engineer and
brakemen employed by the defendant were
upon the train, then the jury have right
to find, from the evidence, that the train
was the train Of the Orange, Alexandria
and Manassas railroad, notwithstanding
they find that the conductor of the defend
ant had not taken possession or charge
thereof
The defendants counsel asked the court
to give the following instructions to the
Jury, which were not objected to by the
counsel for the plaintiff
elf the removal of the plaintiff from one
car into another car of the same train, on
the 10th of October, 1869, at Alexandria,
Va, was effected under the following cir
cumstances, TO wit
/. While the train was under the control
of the conductor of the Washington and
Alexandria Railroad Company, and before
it came under the control of the conductor
of the Orange and Alexandria Railroad
Company; or,
2. While the train was stationary at Alex.
andria, before the conductor Of the Orange
and Alexandria Railroad Company took
charge thereof, and the removal was effected
without the knowledge or approval of the
conductor. or other officer or agent OIL
servant of the Orange and Alexandria Rail
road Company or,
8. If the removal was effected by any
other person or persons than the conductor
Or other officer or servant of the Orange and
Alexandria Railroad Company, and without
their knowledge or approval, then, in
either Of the cases supposed, the defendants
(the Orange and Alexandria Railroad Com
pany) are not responsible for such removal
If the plaintiff, in the conveyance from
Alexandria to Lynchburg, on defendants
railroad on the 10th October, 1869, occu
pied seat in q car in which smoking wa:
allowed, and in which vulgar language was
at times used by passengers on the trip
and ifthe conductor of the train comprising
said carr found the plaintiff in such cal
in the early part OF the trip, and was fre
quently passing in and out of said car on the
trip, and the plaintiff, knowing the conduc
tor so to be 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 failed
to make any complaint to him, or to asl
any relief therefrom, THEN the plaintiff il
not entitled to recover from the defendants
for said cause any damages, or any more
than nominal damages, unless the jury
should further find that such want of com
plaint was produced by the alarm, fear, Of
reasonable apprehension of the plaintiff
caused by the conduct of the defendants
its officers, servants, or employees"