National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-05-04

that on the day he was injured he was riding on
the pilot of the locomotive, and while he was
there the train ran into some cars standing on
the track in the Virginia-avenue tunnel, where
by be injured, and that no person on the train
was injured except himself and another men who
was with him on the pilot. There the plaintiff
The defendant then put upon the stand Free
Tidisg when he received his injury, who testified
that for six weeks or before the accident
there was always box car attached to the train;
that the laboTers In general and Jones In partcu-
lar had been forbidden to ride on the locomotive
both By the conductor and by the engineer; that
on the day Of the accident none OF the agents Of
the defendant knew that Jones was on the pilot,
and that the employees Of the defendant in
charge Of the two trains and Of the tunnel were
competent men.
On the crosP-examination OF this witness he was
asked by plaintiff counsel this question: "During
the period Of six weeks or two months previous to
this accident, when the box-car was in use, who,
aside from the laborers, rode upon the engineer"
This question was objected TO by defendants
counsel, but the objection was oVerruled, and the
witness replied that he frequently allowed his
friends to ride with him on the engine from the
Washington depot to the navy yard.
The admission Of this answer In evidence is the
ground OF the hrst exception.
The defendant then gave evidence tending to
show that the plaintiffs duties required him to
ride on the cars Of the train in question at times
during the day; and that the engineer in charge
OF locomotive alone had authority to allow one
to ride on IT, In rebuttal plaintiff gave evidence
tending to show that the engineer allowed him to
of the engine on the evening he was injured.
This closed the evidence.
The defendants counsel thereupon asked the
court to give the jury the two following instruc.
lions:
]. "If the jury find from the evidence that the
plaintiff knew the box car was the proper place
Tor him, and If he knew his position on the pilot
Of the engine was q dangerous one, then they will
render a verdict for the defendant, whether they
ind that its agents allowed the plaintiff to ride
on the pilot or not"
2 "Ifthe jury find from the evidence that the
agents Of the defendant in charge of the two
trains which collided and the Waterman 10 the
tunnel were selected by the defendant with rea-
sOnable diligence as to inquire into their cOmpe-
teucy, then, although they may ind from the
evidence in the case that the injury to the plain
tiff resulted from the carelessness Of those agents,
Both these prayers were refused and exceptions
taken.
The court then gave the Jury the instructions
appended TO the bill Of exceptions.
The assignments Of errors are:
]. The court erred In allowing testimony of the
witness Freeburn, to the effect that he sometimes
allowed his friends to ride on the engine, 10 go to
the jury.
2. The court erred in refusing the first instruc-
tiOn asked by the defendant.
3. The court erred in refusing the second H.
stEuctiOn asked by the defendant.
The case was argued by the Messrs. Caring
ton for the plaintiff, and by Messrs. Z. L. STAN
ton and U. ). WOrthingtOn for the defendant.
The case was not decided.
Chandler VS.. Cook. Argued and submitted.
Albert Small, esq, Of Hagerstown, Nd, was
admitted to the bar, on motion Of Gen. Mussey.