The daily gazette., 1879-12-17
FIRST EDITION.
OUR COUNTY COURTS.
TOWNSEND BEATS TIE RAIL-
ROAD COMPANY.

DAMAGES - OTHER BUSINESS, IN
CLUDiNG TWO AssuMPsIT CASES
COURT SAYS 1T WILL ADJOURN ON
FRIDAY NEXT.
Specially reported for the Gazette.
NEW CASTLE, Dec. 1G.-Couit did
not convene to-day until l245 o'clock,
aud the Chi Justice at once charged
the jury in the case of Townsend VS.. r.,
w. * B. X. X. Co. The charge is brief
ly summarized below:
The Court said that the action was
brought by Sylvester u. Townsend
against the r., w. & B. X. X. Co., to re-
cover damages received on January "a,
1878, between the hours Of II and II
o'clock at night, by the running away of
his horse, which is alleged to have be-
come frightened ty railroad cal, stand
ing on the track at the crossing, through
the negligence Of the company. There
are also allegations made by the plain
tiii in his narr that the fright was caused
IN the first place by piles of dirt and
stones and lumber neglgently left by
the defendants on the side of Fourth
street, while they were repa ring the bed
o. the street. But there is +, ally no
proof that thee last named distractions
contributed in any respect IN causing the
accident, and the jury will therefore
drop the distractions from their minds
in considering the case, so far as their
connection with frightening the horse is
concerned.
1t appears that prior to the day Of he
accide the railroad company had been
repairing the track at the crossing Of
Fourth street by taking up the planking
and putting down blocks of stone. They
had been doing this on January 24th,
and on crossing at this place that even
ing, in company with Douglass Mccoy,
the plaintiff contends that he received
the injury. The plaintiff contends that
he received the injury through the ne
| elect of the defendant i'll leaving box
car on the track, aud that the damage
all was caused by the h"ise becoming
frightened at this. Tie defendant, on
the othef hand, does not deny the acci-
dent, but says IL was not the result OF
any neglect on his part, bu' occurred OH
account OF rsrelessues' and .'"ct iy
he plain, Il md his coinpanion, Mr.
Mccoy.
The o. RI i,rc ,tattd t.at lie case
being one # lew as wei a, If ia /, tie
the jury Oh itain po.h's IL alhS t.
the case, and he pr rc' Ge Ia do 81"
There does oil appear I" II Y iinpoi'a
difference Of op!LIuG wi'n u IA. Il 10 IN
province of the Philadelphia, W llman e
ton ~ Baltimore Railroad Conn amy. Il
is creation of the State, and corpora
ton By legislative enactmcuts, with Ger
tain privileges grant ed them by Tho
state. # is a common carrier, and Tho
only line Of land communication be-
tween the great cities OF Phladelphi;
and Baltimore, and is al important line
il the great railroad system. 1t Is ;
public highway, but no man can rid'
uDon il in his own vehicle without th'
permission of the company.
This railroad is certainly great high
way for no less than 2e trains contain
ing ssengers stop each day It's Gepo
on Walnut street III Wlmi St0n, ald y
} freight trains cross this sahr llrtl
street daily. Like all other highway
, this must he KEEP, in repairs, and whe'
, such repairs become Necessary for th
benefit of travel the company has IN
| flIllI 10 IIldht llltlts -hiih Nif>' b''sN''
such repairs at the intersection of th
track with street the company has III
right TO close the street, but 1t must b
no longer closed than is really nee ssa
ry. In this work Of repairing the stree
the company is no more nor less than al
AGENT of the people, acting for the publ
good. And this is shown by the facts J.
, the case. The material used was Bel
nian blocks, much superior to what ha
previously been used, and safer for an
mails. The company had right to oil
struct the street as they did and II
greater public obstruction was neede
for safety, and no great public srieyanc
was caused. The plaintiff says, with n
card to the work, that it was not don
as promptly as possible, but does h'
snow how soon it should have bee
! done. On the other hand, the deiendai
: shows that it was done as soon as poss
= bile : and when the difficulties OF lrail
passing and Of the shorness OF the worl
o Ing day at that time Of the year is col
s;dered, we cannot but think that a
=. due and possible diligence was exercise
y, in prosecuting the work. j.,
with this in view, the court said, I'll
:. Jury might entirely dismiss from the
minds the work, and the delay said
have been entertained during ats pr
eress, unless to connect 1t with otht
facts. The question to be considefe
was the frightening of the horse at IL
" box-car The plaintiff has produce
witnesses TO show that boX-car stoo
l. in the street at the crossing that nigh
u and Douglass Mccoy says the hor'
sprane to one side, throwing the whe
,- of the carriage into one OF the excay
q tions, breaking it, and casting the plall
IS tifl out and hurting him. AS there IS I
=. contest ON the part Of the defendant 8
jno 10 show that the car did not stae
=. there, it must be taken as true.
a Now, did the horse get frightened
,r this car or not? If he did so the plan
!. tiff is entitled to verdict at your haiio
a because he claims this among the acts
: negligence on the part OF the deienuai
n If man should place an obstruction
" the county road and cause horse TO D
come frightened and do damage, u
nerson would be called upon to mai
Good the damage. The same rule q
ne olies to tins case. 1t may be well 10 co
tu slider. furthermore, that the leaving
'e' the car ON the track was against the CT
'h ordinance of Wilmington, winch II
pnses a penalty If a car is allowed
er stand on a crossing for more tlah
u minutes, At all event tn act was neg
IL oence. but the question sii'l reihaii
ne "a ~, cor cause the hose Ia stait9