The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1872-03-30
The Sweeley Case.

With the main facts in the case of Mrs.
.SrceJfy VS.. Tie CITY OF 0ttdtoa, most OF our
readers are already acquainted. Mrs. Sweeley
was afflicted with paralysis in her right hand
She came to Ottawa and placed herself under
the treatment of DIR. Olin. The Doctor ap-
piled the galvanic battery TO her limb, gave
her strong nerve stimulants, like strychnine,
and in a lew days the woman was able again
sligh.ly 20 use her hand. About this time,
passing the corner of Main and Court streets,
(in front of MONEYS clothing storey she
stepped upon piece of plank in the sidewalk
which gave way under her feet and she fell,
striking the sidewalk with the afflicted arm
near the elbow. so as to produce q slight ex-
travaSation or redness under the cuticle. On
reporting this fact to DR.. Olin, he told her the
fall ended all hope of the recovery of the use
of her hand SO far as his skill could 90, and
at his suggestion, it is said, she commenced
suit against the city for damages.
The suit was taken, by change of venue, to
Grundy county, and tried year ago, resulting
in verdict for $500 against the city. A new
trial was granted the city on the ground that
the damages were excessive, and that new trial
took place last week, resulting in u second
verdict against :Le city tor $500.
1t was proved on the trial, by the opinion
Of six or eight tirst-class physicians, that the
slight use the woman had received Of her
hand under the treatment of DR.. DIN was the
result of the strong nerve stimulHnts he
had administered, and could in any case only
have been temporary that her case was be.
You'd surgery, and that the fall IN no way in
f1uenced the subsequent increase Of her all
mcnt. it WAS also proved that when the
detect in the sidewalk occurred the city au-
thoriries had called the attention OF Mr.. Moo
ney.to it, who had raised the depressed plank
to its place by driving stake under 1t, but it
appears had done the the work mperfectly.
1tshowed, however that there had been no
negligence on the part of the city in the mat
ter. Under these facts, any verdict except for
nominal damages, would seem to be clearly
un just. 4 motion for q new trial has again
been entered, and is now pending.
-'S'Nc ii''it thc ol tlc ChSG IL
sell, 1t strongly illustrates the hard condition
In which Ottawa is at present placed. Here
Is jury ready to impose heavy penalties on
the city for what in realty was but construc.
tive neglect to keep her sidewalks in perfect
condition, while the Legislature has actually
deprived the city of all power to build or re.
pair sidewalks. She has limited the taxing
power of the city to so cents on the 81, which
barely yields enough to pay the interest on
her Indebtedness and keep the machinery of
her l0ca! government IN moiNn, and has de-
pri"ed her OF the power to order lot owners to
build sidewalks. or TO build sidewalks by
special assessment on the property benefited
What is The city to do? For the past two
years, clearly, she was helpless. The law
stood ready to punish her for having bad
sidewalks, but took from her the power to
improve them. For the future. however her
case is a little better. law Just passed by
the Legislature authorizes the city to double
her tax for general purposes. This may give
the city a few thousand dollars for the next
year to be expended on sidewalks But " hat,
in a city needing ten miles Of new sidewalk
can five or even ten Thousand dollars do?
The State FAR will be here in September
and we want our city in at least apresentable
condition to DC seen by the vast crowds then
to visit us. How is this to he done 1t can onl,
be done by the lot owners themselves taking
the matter in hand and building the side.
walks. Without a manifestation of public
spirit and llberahty in that direction, there i:
no hope, at present. for good sidewalks in
Ottawa