Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-09-13
The NIcDanieI POND trial.

The Mcdaniel Pond Trial.
4 A case has Ieen tried this week
in the Circuit Court which we have
been observing with much interest.
Mrs. Mcdaniel sues the city for
damage done to her property and
that of her children by the flooding
of its lower portions with the drain
y age from large area of surround
ing property. This matter has
interested US on many accounts.
We have already more than once
called attention to the injury sus-
tanned by Mrs. Mcdaniel by the
recent condition of this land, and
we have also treated of it as mat
ter affecting the public hygiene; at
the same time we have not forgotten
that there are two sides to all ques-
tions, and that, whatever compen-
sation may be awarded to Mrs.
Mcdaniel, other widows will have
to draw upon their slender resour-
ces to make it up. AS a public
journalist, therefore, wehavestudied
the proceedings with the earnest
desire of ascertaining what are the
just claims of all parties, and then
advocating the right unbiased by
prejudice or partiality. Some points
not easily determined were mooted
on both sides, and interesting chap
tiers in the early history of Clarks-
vile had to be elected from the
testimony of some of our oldest
citizens.
Messrs. Goodpasture, Quarles and
Daniel were counsel for the plaintiff,
while Mr.. Rufus Rhodes, City At
torney, aided by the Hon. James E.
Rice, appeared in the interest of the
City Council. Skill, industry and
research were elected on both sides,
and it was an ably contested suit
from beginning to end.
The main position which counsel
for the plaintiff depended upon was
the proof that by the construction of
culverts and the change of level, |
the city authorities had drained on |
to the lots in question a large |
amount Of surface drainage from a
tract of ground which otherwise
would have gone in other direc-
tiOns, and so brought large amount
of morbific matter to be deposited
where Mrs. Mcdaniel and the sur
rounding families suffered in their
health from its effiuvia. 1t was
proved that the garden was de-
stroyed and the fruit trees killed by
the overflow, and that Mrs. McDan-
iel lost largely by her boarders
moving away from her house.
Counsel for the city, on the other
hand, cOntended that no water was
thrown upon the Mcdaniel property
which would not have found its
way there if the culverts, ETC., had
not been constructed, and they con-
tended that the City Council had a
right to carry surface water in that
in virtue of a contract the
city had made with DIR. Mcdaniel
thirty years ago, the terms of which
were that the Doctor was to dig a
we'll and Keep it in repair for seven
years, being paid 800 by the city
for the purpose, and that this well
was to be used for the drainage of
the neighboring tract. The undis-
puted use of this well for a long
series of years was claimed as evil
dence that that contract was still in
force and gave the city a right to
bring any amount of surface drain
age in that direction.
Against this it was claimed that
that contract ended at the expira-
ton of the time during which DIR.
Mcdaniel contracted to keep the
well in repair; that it did not pro-
vide for the drainage of any portion
Of the city except that whose water
shed had always been in that direc-
ton, which was only a small pOr-
ton of the area now drained there,
and that it did not justify the bring
ing drainage there which did not
pass off by the well in question, but
spread over the property.
These were the main points under
The law was infinitely
analysed as bearing on these points,
by Messrs. GoOdpasture
and Rhodes, who got up the case
for the plaintiff and defendant re-
5pectively. The charge of Judge
Stark was careful and impartial,
but disappointed us in not declaring
how the law stood in reference to
the draining well so much discussed.
After a long consultation the jury
awarded $1,000 damages to Mrs.
Mcdaniel.
An application for new trial is to
be heard to-day, the Hon. John f.
House being employed by the city
to argue the case. The grounds of
this application we understand to
be: First, excessive damages; Sec
Ond, errors and omissions in the
Judges charge.
We reserve all comment till we
have heard this argument.
Mr.. SAMUEL HYMAN, father of
y ,,.I Me- ID !