The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-11-30

hhiLhoAb rolt bhsuAulLc CSh AilA Gh-
SONS THERE KlLLEp-THE LAW LAID
DOWN AS TO NEGLIGENCE Of TRANS
roRTATIoS COMPANIES.
The Supreme Court OF Appeals yesterday
decided the case OF the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company against Wightman's
administrator. -.
This suit grew out OF the accident which
occurred in the county OF Shenandoah in
the year 1876 at n place known as the Mar
row Passage, which resulted in the death Of
q number Of passengers upon the train OF
the Valley railroad by the falling in OF the
bridge at that point. The Valley railroad
was ut that time and is at present operated
and controlled by the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, which exercises its
powers under u lease from the Virginia
Midland Railroad Company. - l:.
The road upon which the accident !oc-
Cured lies between Strasburg and iHarri-
sonburg, in the county Of Shenandoah. .'
1t may not be generally known. that there
is statute in Virginia, passed in 1872,
which authorizes the representatives Of q
person killed by the default, or neglect, or
wrongful act OF another, or OF q corporation,
to maintain suit and recover damages for
the killing Of such person. Under this
statute large number OF suits were brought
against the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
| Company by the representatives OF persons
killed at Narrow Passage.
Among these was the present suit OF
Wightmun's administrator, brought in the
| county OF Shenandoah, which resulted in q
verdict and Judgment for the plaintiff for
$500. From that judgment the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company took IN appeal
| to the Supreme Court Of Appeals, which
was claborately argued at Staunton in Octo.
Der by Moses Walton for the plaintiff and
General Williams for the company.
The decision Of the Court was rendered
yesterday, Judge Staples delivering the
unanimous option. Our space permits
only brief abstract OF the opinion, which
was an extended one, involving many in
tcresting questions OF law in Virginia. One
OF the first points arising in the case was a
motion of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company to remove it to the Circuit Court
trict OF Virginia, upon the ground that that
company is a foreign corporation, chartered
by the laws Of Maryland.
The Court Of Appeals was OF opinion
that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany. having accepted lease from the Vu-
ginia Midland Railroad Company, a Vir.
ginia corporation, and under that lease
exercising all the powers OF Fir.
ginia corporation, had placed itself in the
position OF domestic corporation for all the
purposes of State jurisdiction. Whether
the company obtained this lease under the
authority Of any statute OF Virginia or by
virtue OF any provision in the charter Of the
Virginia road was not material to inquire.
II the company was here operating the VAL
ley road under a license from the State, it
would be considered quo dd hoe the
line OF said road as Virginia COR
poraton, so far at least as its liability
to answer our own citizens in our own courts
OF the wrongful acts OF its agents. II the
company is operating said railroad without
the authority OF the State it could not claim
exemptions and immunities to which it
would not be entitled il it had such autho-
rity. II it exercises the privileges and func-
tions OF the Virginia corporation it must
likewise be subject to its duties and respon-
Sibilities. This is but Il brief outline Of the
reasoning OF the Court upon this point. The
Court was of opinion that the Circuit Court
Of Shenandoah, therefore, did not err in re-
fusing to remove the case TO the Circuit
Court of the United States.
The Court was further Of opinion that in
q declaration under the statute already re-
ferred to it is unnecessary to state for whose
benefit the action is brought; that the law
gives the damages first to the widow and
children OF the deceased, and il there bc
none living the damages to constitute assets
to be distributed as other personal estate.
The opinion upon this pointinvolyes ques-
tons of purely technical character, which
do not admit OF being embraced within the
limits OF newspaper report.
The Court was further OF opinion that the
Jury in assessing damages to the widow and
children under this statute may properly
estimate the value Of the support and main
tenancc derived from the deceased, the
amount realized by him from his usual avo-
cation, and the loss OF his care, nurture,
and instruction to his family. All these are
elements OF that pecuniary capital OF the
continued exercise and employment OF
which the family are entitled to the benefit,
and of which the wrongful acts Of the de-
| fendant deprived them. 1t is proper, they
held, to look to the relationship and de-
pendent condition Of the parties, the ca
pacity of the deceased, mental and physical,
and all the surrounding circumstances and
situation Of the family, to enable the jury
properly to estimate the loss sustained and
to fix the measure OF compensation.
In estimating the damages it is not pro-
per for the jury to take into consideration
that the deceased had policy OF insurance
upon his life for the benefit of his family
and which had been paid to them since his
death. 1t is to be presumed that the de
ceased paid the value for his policy; the de
fendant paid nothing, and it cannot claim
the benefit Of contract for which it gave
no consideration. The Circuit Court, there
fore, did not erl in giving the instructions
asked for by the plaintiff, nor in rejecting
the evidence offered by defendant on tha
point.
The Court did not err, further, in telling
the jury when carriers undertake to convey
passengers by the powerful but dangerous
agency Of steam public policy and safety
require that they be held to the creates
possible care and diligence. The slight
est neglect against which human fore
sight and prudence might have guarded
and by reason OF which the plaintiff
| intestate may have been occasioned, rem
ders the company liable in damages for hi
death. These instructions correctly stat
| the law as laid down by the courts and tn
most eminent writers in this country.
There are several other points in tn
opinion not here noticed.
The opinion OF the lower court was af
irmed.
There are about twenty other cases de
pendent upon this decision.
ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT INCENDIARIsN.-
Another incendiary attempt was made tt
cupied by a eolored man named Rober
a "a