The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-19
Suit Against the Pennsylvania Railroad
for Property Destroyed During the
Pittsburg RjOts

PHILADELPHIA, April 1s.-The suit OF Hill
Sherman d Go. vs. the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Company, was continued In the United
States District Court yesterday. Before the
first witness was called, Mr.. McVeigh asked
| that the plaintiffs state what they intended
to prove to show negligence on the part Of the
| railroad company.
| He was answered that the prosecution would
show by a number Of witnesses that freight
was abandoned at Pttsburg after trains had
entered that place from the West; that the
employees left off work and remained on the
premises that they were the cause of the
| riot, and that the property OF the shippers
was destroyed Also, that a train of petro-
| leum was allowed to stand on the track, and
that any ,evil-minded person might have
turned the brake, running the same into the
| freight cars and destroying them.
Robert A. Ammone, a brakeman, and Thos.
X. Ryan, locomotive engineer, were exam
| ined, and testified regarding the abandon
ment OF the train by the train hands.
Mt. McVelgh then moved for a non-suit,
stating as his reasons that no evidence had
been given to show the slightest negligence
on the part of the railroad company. It was
simply proved that the company was moving
petroleum, and had train Of petroleum in
fire originated from the petroleum, nor from
negligence on the part Of the company The
company were transporters Of this article,
and it was not shown that it was in an i'm
proper place. 1t was stopped by strike In
the yard, and the plaintiff had not shown that
the company had failed in it's duty There
was not a particle of evidence that the com
pany had committed any act of wrong doing.
:, After a reply from Mr.. Allen, Judge Nc
kenna said that he and Judge CadWallader
would hear further argument on the point to-
day.
This morning the arguments Of the defend
ants were heard on a demurrer against the
testimony offered by the plaintiff and asking
that they be non-suited.
MT. McVeigh, in his argument, said that
nothing had been shown in the testimony to
which reply could be made. There must
be some evidence which could be formulated
by the court as basis upon which 1t could
authorize the jury to draw their conclusions
The prosecution must show where the neg
Ggence existed. There is no weight in the
evidence upon which the court could deduce
the conclusion that the company had failed in
any portion Of their duties to the plaintiffs.
The company was not responsible for the
conduct of the employees.
Judge Cadwallader interrupting, asked If
the company was not bound to employ trust
worthy men In charge Of freight
Mr., McVeigh said: You cannot charge US
with the willful act Of its men. The company
ls not supposed to have a relay of men. In
the testimony offered 1t is not shown that any
fused to do their duty. There was no proof
of any negligence at the time Of the fire The
cars were brought into the immense yard of
the company, in order to be made into trains.
L He court certainly cOuld not assume That
these cars should be manned while standing
in the yard. There was no evidence to give
to jury No railroad in the world places
men in charge of trains when in the yards.
The question as to the origin of the fire be-
ing again brought up, the witness Ryan was
recalled, and he testified that he was at the
Union Depot, a mile from the fire, when he
first saw the flames. He reached there about
five minutes afterwards. The Oil ears were
jammed against the box cars, and both trains
were on fire.
Mr.. McVeigh-What presumption OF evil
dence is there against the company? 1t does
when the torch was applied, or whether the
oil cars had been set on fire and then run
down. What must be shown is, the fact of
negligence. The only evidence on the subject
is nothing unusual in that. The only thing
the jury could possibly do. In the absence OF