Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1884-03-20
/. The Jury found that the

oitah was Ahtt0 III HWY tLibli q hlOllths
If that City Council did not exercise
due diligence in the matter of fixing up
that sidewalk, none ever did. 1t came
into power about the middle of May,
and by the 9th of June had oyerhauled
every sidewalk in Lancaster. The one
in question was broken on the night OF
July 4th. The accident happened on
the 9TH of July. 1t is asking too much
that the city be held so strictly respon-
sible. 1t would be better TO tear out
your sidewalks, do away with your City
Charter and take to- the ways of our
fathers. From the observations have
heard. it appears that few people come
to any other conclusion than that the
whole transaction was founded in fraud.
/ have said boldly and say here that it
is q robbery of this city and nothing
else. 1t is robbing the poor women and
children who have to help pay this
money as well as the wealthy ones
l have made q rough estimate of what
this verdict, if paid, would cost some of
the people of Lancaster. 1t. will take
two per cent. (or near it) OF the assessed
valuation of the city, which is 1886, 900.
lCol. Clark presented few individual
taxes of this year and added what the
increase would be as an illustration. I
And it is only the beginning of your
troubles; it is not the end of litigation.
1t is not for doctor bills, nor for her
services, which belong to her husband;
he has legal right to sue you and will
do It. | show you what your taxes will
be In this particular matter, but there
is another thing. Ii you pay this iudg-
ment there is no alternative from the
position that | occupy and it is the po-
sition of everybody in this matter-as
the husband was not joined in this suit
and she is not responsible party from
whom you can collect costs, and if he
had joined in this suit his mouth would
have been shut hereafter, but he can
then turn aroundand sue you for the
services of his wife and for medical at
tendance; he can wait until the six
years limitation of actions have nearly
expired and then include the claim for
services or the whole time and her
support as well.
Some one asks if they can recover at
torney fees?
Of course whenever they recover that
takes in attorney fees, they never
omit anything of this kind. / have
given you brief history of this case,
that jury must have been governed by
passion and prejudice, otherwise they
could not have formed the verdict they
did in the faces of the testimony of Mr..
and Mrs. Star, Mr.. Mitchell and others,
of only the one break which was made
on the night of July 4th.
The Supreme court of Wisconsin will
not sustain that verdict for a moment
when they get hold of the evidence they
will wipe it out. Judge Mills is present
and can speak for himself. so is Judge
Clementson and they should understand
what rules will govern the supreme
court in passing upon this question.
There is another question coming up
that the Supreme Court ought to pass
upon. Mrs. McLimans testifies that it
was very dark night when the acct
dent happened that she called to her
daughter to come. let US hurry; that she
whitfield and was going very fast for a
moment. She started to run and fell;
she was not using due diligence ON l.
foot walk (some one says an eight-foot
walk. Yes, Mr.. Sauce swole that the
walk was six or eight feet wide and that
he passed over it about three hundred
times month, six or seven times day
any way, and in his other testimony he
was just as wild and cratic.
| for one was not disposed to submit
to the outrage. asked Mr.. Goldsmith
IN 1aiy md xuantoI fat
of both papers to remained. | wanted
the people to understand that the out
rage had been or was going to be per-
petrated. At the former trial | was
left there alone to fight the battle. This
time saw what kind of treatment they
would receive and asked them to stay
and see it out, and to a small extent
they did so.
You have indorsed the action of your
city officers by renominating them.
Calls for Judge Clementson, who re-
sponded :
| have very little to say As has been
stated, | had the fortune, or misfortune
of occupying the honorable position of
Mayor of this city when Mrs. McLimans
met with the injury-or so-called injury.
No notice was served for some consider
able time, upon the Mayor or council, and
finally when Mr.. Thompson came to me
with the notice that was served, he came
in such way as to impress me with the
belief that he was not really in earnest
in the case. He boarded there and per-
haps thought that he could turn an
honest penny to paw his hoard bill by
drawing q notice. | called the attention
of the council to it and the matter
rested there, nothing was done for about
Is months and when the suit was called
| was surprised.
| thought we had a good case and
was satisfied that the verdict must be
for the defendant, but the jury took a
different view of the matter OF course
it is an easy matter for a jury out in
Green county to say that woman that
is lame, or acts lame up there, should
recover something. The first verdict of
$4,000 the Judge set aside. The case
was then appealed by Mrs McLimans,
who claimed that the Judge erred in
setting aside the verdict-that the Judge
had no right to set it aside.
The case finally came on for re-trial
and | was surprised when | heard that
she got a verdict for $4,000. If | did
not occupy the position that /. do, |
should say that the verdict was an out
rage ct requires discreet language) In
order to be discreet shall use legal
language. The verdict seems to be the
result of passion and prejudice on the
part of the jury. | have been told that
the attorneys on the part of the plain
tiff did not restrict themselves in what
they said against the city of Lancaster.
The Supreme Court has held that when
a person has received an injury in any
town the town is answerable for it, and
the question whether it is poor or
rich town cannot be considered. A jury
can only give what in their calm dis
cretlon, under the testimony, they are
warranted in giving for the actual dam
ages received. There is no man in this
room, probably. who thinks that $4,000
should be paid her if she had been in
jured in both legs. There is no good,
square, honest proof that the city had
been negligent at all The rule of law,
as indicated by Col Clark, to hold the
city responsible. is that there must be
proof that it has been negligent There
must be proof that the city officers had
known of this defect aud had neglected
to fix it. The sidewalk in question leads
towards the fair ground Win any man
say that the city officers were negligent
in not knowing that some drunken bows
had broken single board In that walk
when only three days had elapsed since
they had seen it in good condition,
have my own views of the testimony
II is not ALWAYS best to venfilafn one.