Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1879-12-20
WILMINGTON, DEL, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 90 1879


|
The Mccoy Case verdict-A Bstcf
OF Cases COntinued-The Harril
Fjeciment Case Again.
Specially reported .or the Republican.
New CASTLE, Dec. 19th.-Court me
this morning at the usual hour, with
Judges Wootten and Houston on tn.
bench.
Mr.. Gordon at once commenced hi
argument to the jury, and talked al
hour and half, after which Mr.. Lor,
occupied three quarters Of an hour il
Summing up.
At the conclusion OF the argument
Judge Houston charged the jury in Of,
feet az, follows: There has been a mass
Of contradictory testimony in this case
which the jury must weigh and believs
that which 1t considers most trustwof
thy. The case is SO familiar that it IL
hardly necessary to state it. The charg.
is neglect on the part Of the railroad
company in putting car on the street
and the whole question comes down tt
that. The leaving Of car SO near a
crossing, and particularly a temporary
crossing, wonld have been in itself a
ground of action for the persons
who had been injured from that
cause, without an ordinance of the city
on the subject; but there is an ordi.
nance on the subject, land the court
read i'll which makes the offence finea-
BILE to the extent of $50. 1t was culpa.
BILE negligence to leave that car at. the
crossing for the length of time it was
there. But, in reply, the defendant
alleges that the plaintiff himself was
negligent also. 1t is therefore negli.
gence, and the jury is to decide that
fact from the evidence which it has be-
fore 1t, and very nice matter it is for
it to determine. In conclusion the
Court saM, "If you should consider
that the plaintiff was himself negligent
in selecting his course or in his manner
of driving, why then the plaintiff cannot
recover, so that if it is mutual it will
avail the defendant, although the neg
lect may not have been equal" The
Court said it would not attempt to re-
view the evidence, as it was so contra
dictory that it could not tell the jury
which to consider, and as the jury was
the sole Judge Of that matter, he left it
with them.
The jury then retired aud returned
at 2.30 with verdict for plaintiff for
six cents with costs.
All cases that cannot be settled with
out a trial by jury are continued.
Among these are those of Croasdale
against Bright, Tantum, Wood and
Hawkins, in which leave was given to
amend on both sides. Counsel for de-
PENDANTS in these cases, Mr.. Lore, OBJ
tanned leave to withdraw the special
plea entered by him in these cases at
this term.
Case of Pancoast & Craven, VS.. Carl
Specht; Higgins, Turner. Mr.. Higgins,
asked for judgment for plaintiff which
was refused.
Case of Gilmore VS.. Griiiiths, execu-
tors; Whiteley, Pennington. A rule to
quash an attachment, was upon motion
of Mr.. Whiteley, counsel for plaintiff,
made absolute.
Henry Bunting VS.. Patrick Newell's s
administrative; Spruance, Lore; judg-
ment for plaintiff for 626.5l.
William Bryson VS.. James McCloskey.
Lore, Turner; judgment for plaintiff
for costs.
David Irwin VS.. Annie NJ. Finnegan !;
discontinued; Pennington for plaintiff !,
defendant unrepresented.
William G.. Gibbons VS.. William H.
Lambson's Administrative; Spruance,
Rodney; Judgment for plaintiff for
$l55.56.
Emlen Hewes VS.. William Il. Lamb
sons Administrative; Spruance, Rodney:
judgment for plaintiff for sl37.0S.
Isaac C. Pyle VS.. John Townsend's
executor; Cummins, Rodney; judgment
for plaintiff for s35s.30.
At noon Mr.. Lore filed his reasons for
q new trial in the case of John A. Will
son VS.. John P. Stats. This is famil
iarly called "the engine case."
All jurymen were discharged from
further attendance until next February.
Directly after the noon recess argu-
msnt was heard upon Mr.. Cummins
motion for a new trial in the case of the
D. w. R. R. Co. vs.. Mary and Eliza
Mr.. Cummins spoke two hours
and half, after which, at $50, Mr..
5pruance took the floor, and was speak
ing at 6 o'clock. Counsel are desirous
of finishing this question this evening.