Wilmington daily gazette., 1874-05-23
Reported for the Gazette.)
New CASTLE. DEL. Nav 90 1s-

OTHER BUSINESS.
Reported for the Gazette.)
NEW CASTLE, DEL, May 90, 1874
Court opened at the usual hour this morn
ing Judges Gilpin WOoten Il Houston on the
bench after the calling of the General Jury
Mr.. Bird proceeded with his argument citing
numerous cases which he cOntended not only
established the principle he claimed that only
ordinary precaution was necessary but that
the company was bound to neglect no signals
and that he was not compelled to presume
danger. After speaking at some length he
closed by exhorting the Court not in the first
| case in which this question has come for ad-
| iudicaton in this Stafe to say that the plain
| tiff in this suit should be thrown out of court
because they did not stop and listen or get out
and see II danger was near when they had
looked With every opportunity of having seen
| the train II 1t had had the proper signal on
| Its front 1t was the negligence of the COM
pany that had caused The accident. For nine
| miles they came laundering down that road
that dark night without any headlight. the
| darkness so intense that night that the engin-
| eer at the time of the accident could not see
what he struck. utterly reckless of the lives
not only OF those who might be on their way
| but OF those whom they carried, and, yet they
| never blew whistle but once. For wears
| they had sgnalled with their whiStle,fo years
they had never failed to have headlight.
| These people relied upon these, and the pre-
sence of that which they mistook for light
| in cousin Daps house, was this night to these
| unfortunate people as the false wreckers light
placed upon the shore which lures sailors to
their destruction. IL the Court settle this doc i.
trine as the defendants wish il should not be
as now, when this company crime into this
Court. with hands smeared with negligence but
with clean hands at 1855 7. NJ Mr. Bird con-
cluded Mr. Gordon for the Railroad Company
commenced his argument. lie started by re-
ferring to the relations borne by the plaintiff
to the Railroad corporation, to the character
of the stringent rules OF law which made the
company responsible TOR the safe delivery,
absolutely of fright, and merely so of passen-
gers, and asked that this Court should award
to them some protection adequate to their re
sponsbities.
: The question in this cause is divided into
list, Have tie defendant been gully of any
culpable negligence for which they are liable?
and End, Presuming negligence which We do
not, does the fact that the plaintiff did not stop
the carriage and make use of their senses ON
. this occasion constitute only evidence OF negli-
gence for tue jury or does it constitute negli-
: gence per 81 for The court? The counsel pre-
ceedeu to argue from the evidence that the
train when they arrived near the crossing
must have been i'll such close proximity that
the most ordinary person using caution could
not have failed to hear it.
At the period OF the argument Court ad
journed until L. NJ
AFTERNOON SESSION.
, Court opened at the usual hour and SIR. Cor:
don resumed his argument. He proceeded TO
discuss the failure of the plaintiff TO Look for
danger al the proper point ard aimed differ
+, ance in law between mere look aud vigilance
in looking, which here was not exercised. The
same NAV be said of the hearing, God has CIV
en- US these senses to protect us and the law in
: casss like this Is to exercise them fully. This
lesson should be taught not by jrry, but from
! the very Court itself not only for the sake Of
people like The plaintiff, bat for the sake OF houf
ands of people who travel upon railroads of this
country. At q trot, without pause with muf,
fed ears AID the wheels rafting oyer tie hard
read they rushed to what was nearly death. Had
they stopped one minute the boom and Iumblipg
of that train would have struck upon their ears
aud they would have been safe IL our propos;
ton is law, then, there could be no clear
er case in point of facts adduced.
The counsel denied that even had thers been
no conributory negligence, still the faes Of
; this case do not prove any culpability. These
people testify tina, for twenty years this company
, had never failed in carrying headlight. Tried
by the test of human thought can Ii Be believsd
tn at one instance Of failure denotes negligence.
1t is but fair to this company to infer no negli-
gence. Again the very Maryland case relied
upon by the counsel for plaintiff proves that the
failure of this lady to stop and listen is negligence
per Sc.
The counsel here read and commented on this
CONTINUED ON THE JHIRD PAGE.