The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1879-05-03
THE GRICE CASE.
A Verdict for the County.

The above case, to which considerable at
tentiun was directed, is HOW not of sutfi-
cicnt Importance to warrant the publication
of the limony, til" decision having been
in favor uf the county, and taxpayers not
being pccuniarilv interested in it.
The trial began on Wednesday of last
week and was concluded early on Tuesday
morning last. by a verdict for the defend
ant. Tile plaintiffs occupied the first three
days of the trial III the examination of their
Witnesses. The fourth day OF the trial was
taken up 10y the examination ot defendants
witneSst., and rcbntting testimony on part
"f plaintiffs and argument ri the prayers
presented hy both sides To the court. ON
fifth day (Monday) Court passed upon the
prayers. ruling that the County Commits
Sioncrs ot Cecil county We're hound IT, keep
the public roads and bridges of the county in
repair. and that when the roads and bridges
of The county required repairing, they
were authorized to suspend public travel
over said roads and bridges ion Il reasonable
time and hat they were not bound, during
said repairs, to construct any other temper
airy road or bridge for the accommodation of
the public. The Court also granted prayer
that, if Dr. Grcr. by his own want of rc:;-
sonablr care and prudence. contributed to
his death, then tie plaintiffs could not re-
cover.
Tie Court also granted prayers in behalf
of the plaintiffs, saving that if The tcmlor-
AIRY crossing over Back creek. mentioned in
the declaration. was erected by the County
Commissioners osthcir agent. or said tenn
porarv croSSin" was accepted by the said
Commissioners ur their agent, and that if
said crossing was unsafe and dangerous t"
travellers. and in consequence thereof DIR.
Grirr lost his life without any want ot rcs-
Sunab care and prudence on his part. then
the plaintiffs We're entitled IL recover.
The decision ut the ease turned upon the
question. whether the temporary crossing
was erected by the County commissioners
or hv their order, or accepted by them or
their agent, and the evidence showing that
such was not the case, and the Jury helicv-
ing that the County Commissioners had
nothing t" do With the erecting of the tenn
porary crossing, and that they never ac-
cepted ii, found verdict Tor III" detcnd-
ants.
The evidence OF the witnesses for the
plaintiffs clearly showed that thu. temper
AIRY crossing. in the first instance was put
up by order of two OF the Commissioners Of
Chesapeake City, and thar they paid tor IT,
The plaintiffs, by their counsel, attempted
TO show by testimony and argument to the
Jury that there was an acceptance al the
temporary crossing lay tn" County Commits
Sioner> through their agent, Il. NJ. traw-
ford; hut they failed to do to the >atiStac-
tion of the jury, and hence there Was 4 YER
diet for the defendants.
The jury was composed nf gentlemen nf
the highest character and intelligence and
il Was conceded that their ver,iict was i'll
accordance with the law and the evidence
in the cause rendered couScientiously, al
though the jury had much sympathy with
the plaintiffs. y. I. iiddlr, II. Mrtul-
Tough, James \. Pcarcc. counsel for Com
misSionerS: Albert Constable and g. H. W.
Craig for plaintiffs.