Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-12-01

tersoo voted aye. Both gentlemen were then
sworn 10.
At 2lO the Senate went into executive ses.
sion.
At $50 d. ID. The doors wcra reopcncd, and
The Senate adjourned to two o'clock this after
nOoD.
The Narrow Passage Accident.
The decision of the Court of Appeals Of this
State 10 The case of the Narrow Passage acci-
dent has heretofore been mentioned. The Rich'
mond Dispatch says
This suit grew out Of tho accident which 90
Cured 10 the oouoy CT Shenandoah 10 The year
1875 at a place known as the Narsow Passage,
which resulted in The death of number of pas
sengers upon the traio OF the Valley Railroad
The Valley Railroad was at that time and is al
present operated and controlled hy the Balti
moro and Ohio Railroad Company, which exer.
cses it's powers under lcsse from the Virginia
Midland Railroad Company.
It may not be generally known that there is
a statute in Virginia. passed 10 1872, which AL
thorizss the representatives of persoa killed
by the default, or neglect, or wrongful act Of
another, or Of corporation, to maintain q suit
and recover damages for the killing Of such per
SOD. Under this statute large plumber Ut
suits were brought against the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company by the representatives
Of persons killed at Narrow Passage.
Along these was the present suit or Wight
mao = alnl'ni:lrator, brought 10 tho county Of
| 81! n : A:;3:, which resulted in a verdict ard
| iud n,ac: Tor the plaintiff for So 500. From
faL JUDGMENT the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
tovk an appeal to tho Supreme Court OF APP
| pea's
One of the first points Arising in tho case was
a motion of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company to remove it TO the Circuit Court Of
the United States for the Western District If
Virginia, upon the ground that that company
is foreign corporation, chartered by the laws
Of Maryland.
The Court of Appeals was of opioion that
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.
having accepted lease from the Virginia Mid.
land Railroad Company, Virginia corporation,
and under that lease exercising al the powers
| of Virginia corporation, had placed itself 10
the position of a domestic corporation tor ell the
purposes of State jurisdiction. Whether tbs
company obtained this Lease uuder the authorl-
ty of any statute of Virginia or By virtue OF soy
provision 10 the charter Of the Virginia road
was not material to icqulre. II the company
was hero operating the Valley Road under u
| license from the State, it would be considered
ono ad hoe the line Of said read as a Virginia
corporation. so far at least as its liability to az
swer our own citizens in our oWa courts OF tho
wrongful acts of its agents. Ii the company is
operating said railroad without the authority Of
the State it could not claim exemption aud i'm
munties to which it would not be cutiicd if it
had such authority. Ii it exercise the prlvl
| Ieges and functions of the Virginia corporation
it must likewise be subject to its duties and re-
| sponsibilties. This is but brief outline OF
| the reasoning Of the court upon this polot. The
| court was of opinion that tho Circuit Court OF
Shenandoah, therefore, did not err 10 refusing
| to remove the case to the Circuit OF the Uotcd
States.
Tie Court was further Of opinion that 10 d
declaration under the statute already referred
| to it is unnecessary TO state for whose benefit
tho action is brought; that the law gives tho
damages first to the widow and children Of the
deceased, and if there be none living the dam
ages 10 constitute assets to be distributed IS
other personal estate. The opinion upon this
point involves questions Of purely technical
character, which do not admit of being embraa-
I'd within the limits OF newspaper report.
The Court was further of opinion that the
| Jury 10 assessing damages TO the widow and
children under this statute may properly esti,
mate the value Of the support AID maintenance
derived from the deceased, the amount realiz ID
by him from his usual a7ocatou AID the loss
OF bis care, nurture, and instruction to bis fam.
! lily. All these are elements Of that pecuuiary
| capital Of the continued exercise aod employ
ment of which The family are entitled to the
benefit. and Of which the wrongful acts Of the
defendant deprived them. It is proper, they
held, to look 10 the relationship and dependent
condition of the parties, the capacity cf the de-
ceased mental and physical, aud all the sur.
rounding circumstances and situation Ct the
family, to enable The jury properly to estimate
the loss sustained and to fix the measure Of
compensation.
10 estimating the damages it is not proper
for the jury to take into consideration lhat the
deceased had policy Of insurance upon his
life for the benefit of bis family. aud which had
been paid to them since bis death. It is to be
presumed that the deceased paid the value for
his policy; the defendant paid nothing, and it
cannot claim the benefit of a contract for which
it gave no consideration. Ths Circuit Court,
therefore, did not err 10 giving the Instructions
evidence offered by defendant on that point.
The Court did not err, further, 10 telling the
jury when carriers undertake 10 convey pas,cn
gers by the powerful but dangerous agency Of
steam public policy and safety require that they
be hold to the greatest possible care and dill
geuce. The slightest neglect against which hui
man foresight and prudence might have guard
ed, and by reason Of which the plaintiff ntes
tate may have been occasoned, renders the
company liable ia damages for his DEATH
These instructions correctly state the law as
laid down By the courts and The most eminent
writer's j. lis country.
Tb, ;;ialon Of the lower court was affirmed.
Tnel> are about twenty other cases Deepen.
dent upon this decision.
miscellaneous Foreign News.
The London Times, 10 40 editorial, highly