Daily Republican., 1879-12-17
THIRD EDITION.
OVk COUNTY COURT.
Charge I'm the Townsend Sasv-
The Verdict Of the Jury "A" In
teresling AcliOu ON N Note

1ptClully hbluItpu ipi bhp bsSpN'
New CAsrLB, Dec. 10Th, 10
Cou t convened at l2.45.
Tn Jury in tho case Of Townsend Va.
P.W. & b. r. r. Co., answered to thsir
nam d, when Judge Coaieays delivered
the charge In substance as follows
Tnm Is case brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant for alleged in
luti.s sustained by collision with car
sad pile Of rubbish negligsntly lett by
iiiy de.andsut in the bed OF Fourth
,,lyp5. There Is however no proof that
is.- accident resulted from thesr piles
o dist. The Company was at that
tune engaged in excavatins the bed OF
the road In order to fill in with Bel
gian blocks. That upon the evening
OF the accident the plaintiff received
INJURIES which he claims were the re-
salt Of the placing of the car on the
track Is mentioned.
There wac box car standing on the
track Of the company, and in default
Of testimony to tho contrary We must
beli+y- IL to have been there Nov il
tue horse became frightened at mat car
and the plaintiff sustained theau dam-
ages by reason of this fright L. is Gu
titled TO recover as thu car saa there In
violation of an ordinance Of the city.
Was 'he horse frightened by that carr
Tue witness Mccoy states he was, but
Stewart the night Waterman states
that the collision wss ocoseioned by
negligence and bad driving, and that
the carriage struck the curb and
not the car. Here is a direct con.radic-
ton aud you must determine which lie
right rememb ering that Mccoy has also
suit against the company and wAs
then returning from convivial party.
Az VOC have heard much Of reasonable
car-, !. may be proper to state that where
the danger is near and apparent the
care must be more watchful than where
it is remote. When man is passing
along an INSTRUCTED highway he should
exercise the greatest care. II the plain
tit1 we're in any way contributory 70 the
accident they cannot recover, Mccoy
proves that his horse was gentle but
Stewart proves that he was coming
down Fourth street at rate which |
made it probable that he had been !
frightened further up the street.
Th- evidence proves that the plaintiff
and Mccoy were present at the ratil4 OF
a horse and while there admits that
they pattook Of the refreshments ri
each man took his share the plaintiff
mHs; have taken ! quart Of champagne
and some whlskey. Now gentlemen while
you may not know ii, yet, that quaint
ty Of these inspiring beverages Ii very
apt 70 make man hilarious. Mraley
Swear5 that all the party were pretty
fnll, while Mccoy swear3 he had not
taken 50 much liquor as TO int0Xicate
him but then no man however drunk
will ever admit the fact. II you think
that Mccoy did not drive with such
care az sober man should use then
you cannot find for the plaintiff. lie
can make no plea OF excuse on account
Of his condition. If you think hs did
drIve with such care you may hni for
the plaintiff. The matter Of route taken
by Tia. plaintiff need not be considered.
Th1 defendant took all precautions
aga asst accident by placing there light
and d special Waterman, and there WIS
another passage al the same place and
we'll lighted. In action for damages,
the plaintiff must state some specified
amount which he has lost by reason OF
such accident or what he considers he
should have by way Of compensation.
THIS tue plaintiff has not done. You
can find either nominal damages for the I
plaintiff or allow him such sum for
the pain aud anguish which he thinko
he has undergone, as you deem proper
The Jury then retired and returned
with a verdict for plaintiff for so and
costs Of suit. ii
James MrElroy VS.. Daniel Burton
lore for plaintiff, Moore for defendant.
After impannelIing a jury Co1rt al !
jourued until o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr.. Bird announced that the clses OF !.
D. $. Fire Marine Insurance Co. against c
". 7. Croasdale and the same agains.
4. u. Publishing Co., had been con. ,
timed with leave to amend. q
Cases TIA and It's, Hickman James I
az. VIM. W. Pritchett, were continued :
,u ground OF absence of material wit
nesses.
Case OF McElroy vs. Burton was taken +,
lp, This is an action on promissory
note OF $500, dated April IS, 1875. The C
plaintiff demands face Of the note, costs !,
VI protest and interest On the whole {
amoont claimed, being 1902 "A Mr. r
Moore for defense admitted the execu-
ion OF the note. The dsfense OF Bur a
on is that the deb. is paid by the sale
~ Edward S. Burton, the payee, OF the l.
lote Of 1872 Of the schooner Lucy h
Wright, to the payor James McBlroy.
Edward 8. Burton sworn | ain the
'ndors"r Of this note. The debt Is :.
min, ths maker is my brother, vino vac
ealIy an accommodation maker. f.
CrOs. examined by Mr.. Moor. fhp
money voich received from the no.e Fl
vas used by ne bu. the note was b. y
!Cts Of my brother. d,
Mr.. Lore objected to the testimony Of
lie ituess because il this action Is DE- a
es'ei he is freed from any liability as
o the note. II
NJ. Moore in reply stated that tho
witness being the il dorser is liable To p
he indorssr and to the maker and thus +,
here Ia an equipoise Of interes: and
there there ID equipoise he is liable, O.
md competent witness. G
Toe Co ,rt state that al examination
I the note showed that the indorse- ri
nent Of the payer had been stricken +,
ut ard without that endorseurns no r,
ma al sa gay, an. u NON IL aynpnt tia az