Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1880-03-10
MEYER VS.. v. & 7. R. R. co.
THE RAILROAD NOT TO PAY
FOR THE GOODS.

A Suit to Recover the Value Of
Property Destroyed by Fire at
the Mound HOuse-The Railroad
Fails to Obtain a Change OF Ven.
ue--The Complaint and Answer
Instructions to the Jury.
The case of NJ. Meyer VS.. the Viz
ginia and Truckee Railroad Com.
pany, which was recently tried in
the District Court, Dayton, has at
tfacted considerable attention, as the
point involved the liability or non.
liability of common carrier for
goods carried by it, after the goods
had been removed from it's cars, YES
sells, or transports-is of the utmost
Importance TO slippers.
Ga the 18th of September, 1879,
the Mound House depot or ware.
house ofthe railroad company, and
its contents, were destroyed by fire.
Among the goods so destroyed was
merchandise belonging to the par
ties named below, and of the value
stated: NJ. Meyer, si,4as 4s; ]. D.
Sims, $s47 90; G. E. Jaqua, siss e5,
J. r. Shaw, $3.50 so. The company
refusing to indemnify the losers,
the three last-named assigned their
claims to M. Meyer, who brought
suit for the whole amount-2,649 IS,
and interest from September 10 1879.
The complaint. as finally amended,
recited the facts above stated, alleged
that part Of the goods DESTROYED
we're piled up near the track in an
exposed situation, and claimed that
the warehouse was destroyed because
of imperfectly CONSTRUCTED locomo-
tives and the carelessness of defend
ants employees.
November eth the defendant de-
INJURED to the complaint on the
gound that it did not allege facts suf-
ficient to constitute cause of action.
THE RAILROAD ASKS FOR CHANGE
OF VENUE. -
On the eth of last Decent Der the
defendant asked for change of ven.
ne. In support of this motion an af.
fidavit was fled by Superintendent
Yerington, setting forth that he III.
NJ. Yerington had reason to believe
that the defendant could not have
an impartial trial in Lyon County;
that there was general prejudice in
the minds Of the citizens of the said
county against defendant-which
prejudice would affect the Jurors
called and sworn to try the issues
made In the above.entitled cause.
That the main fact TO be ascertained
by such jury will be whether or not
defendant was guilty of negligence,
as charged in plaintiffs complaint,
and that in case of conflict Of test.
mony the jury would lean against de.
PENDANT. That the plaintiff and his
assiguors are all well known and
popular citizens, etc. That the facts
recited tended to place the plaintiff
in a more favorable position before
any ordinary jury, than defendant
could possibly occupy-so that it
would he impossible for the latter to
obtain an impartial trial.
The motion was denied by His
Honor Judge Seawell. The defend.
ant thereupon filed its answer. It
denied that the property DESTROYED
was of the value stated; that such
property was by it stored in its ware
house on the date stated, or at anv
time; and averred that all such prop
erty was, upon its arrival at the
Mound House. delivered to plaintiff,
and at his special instance and re-
quest allowed to remain, free of
charge, in the defendants warehouse
to await tho plaintiffs convenience
in hauling it away. 1t also denied
that the locomotives were more i'm
perfectly constructed than those in
use on other railroads, and claimed
that the employees were as careful
and competent as possible.
The case finally came to trial a
few days ago, before jury. Con-
siderable evidence was taken, ard
quite large array Of counsel APP
peared for each side. The trial con-