Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1884-03-20
MeLimans "a. CITY Of Lancaster.

caster mas nau Judgment rendered
against her for damages to Mrs. McLi-
mans, resulting from defective side
walk. The first suit, tried in the Cir
cult Court of Green county, was ably
tried by the attorneys on both sides,
but the jury, composed of twelve disin-
terested men. found that the plaintiff
was injured to the extent of $4,000, and
so gave in their verdict. Judge Conger,
then presiding on the bench, granted a
motion of the attorneys for the city to
have the verdict set aside as excessive.
Plaintiffs counsel appealed from the
decision of Judge Conger, and the case
went to the Supreme Court. That trib-
unal sustained Judge Conger in bis de-
cision of excessive damages, and sent
the case back for new trial. The at
torneys on both sides, fortified with adj
ditional evidence, went INTO the case
fully confident of each others ability to
win. But one side could be successful
The trial occupied the attention of the
court and jury for nine whole working
days. Witnesses by the score were ex-
amined on both sides. The lawyers
fought the case, step by step, with a
tenacity almost unheard of. Witnesses
were put on the rack, as it were, and
their previous history, as well as what
they knew about the case, was brought
out on cross-examination. Physicians
who had made careful examinations of
the injuries of the plaintiff, were sworn,
and their evidence was sifted by the OPP
posing counsel. The lawyers, in their
plea to the jury, lost no opportunity to
present their case in as strong a light
as possible. The charge of the Judge
was as fair and impartial as could he
made, and the jury, with all the evil
dence before them; with the arguments
of counsel still ringing in their ears;
with the charge of the Judge fresh in
their memory, left their seats for the
jury room to consider their verdict
After being out from one o'clock until
half past six, they returned to the court
room and their verdict was for the sum
of $4,000 for the plaintiff. A motion
for arrest of judgment and new trial
was made by the attorneys for the City,
against whom the verdict was rendered.
The motion was overruled, the verdict
sustained, and judgment given the
plaintiff by the Circuit Court.
This is, in brief, plain statement of
the case since its commencement in the
Circuit Court The attorneys for the
plaintiff were Messrs. A. Il. Bushnell of
Lancaster, and VIM. Z. Carter of Platte
vile, Messrs. John G. Clark and j. T.
Mills, were the attorneys of the defend
ant city. Proceedings will be instituted
to carry the case to The Supreme Court,
in the hope of having the case thrown
out, or to have the Judgment RENTED.
Both parties are equally sanguine that
their side of the case will be favored by
the tribunal of last resort. As a matter
of course, the taxpayers of the City of
Lancaster are opposed to the paying of
the judgment; they call it exhorbitant;
they say that the paying of SO great an
amount of damages is unjust. They
were equally as indignant when a ver-
dict of $1,000 was rendered against
them. They were opposed to paying
damages from the start. Let it not be
understood that all the Taxpayers of
Lancaster are DESTROYS of longer fight
ing this case. That is not the fact.
Many were in favor of settling before
the first trial; they were in favor of
settling with the plaintiff before the
second trial began;t they are now in favor
of settling with Mrs. McLimans and
have stop put to further litigation and
further expense. The costs in the case
| already amount to about $4,000, and
another suit will entail additional costs
of nearly $4,000. This constantly in
creasing cost impresses the minds of the
taxpayer that there will eventually be
an end to the affair, and that if nothing
more is required of them than paying
the costs, they will be mulcted in a
heavy tax at the finish.
The question of carrying on this suit
is serious one, and those who will
eventually have to foot the bill, should
look at it in business light. Already
twenty-four impartial men, sworn to
give their opinion of the merits in this
case ON the law and evidence presented
to them, have found damages have been
proven. These men were taken from
among the residents of Green county,
and were consequently unbiased, not
| knowing the parties to the suit. In
these decisions of the twentyfour men
! it Is evident the proof produced con-
titled to recover damages for the injuries
she alleges in her complaint to have re-
ceived, and it is also evident that the
more time that intervenes between the
accident and the trial, the greater is the
amount of damages awarded. Now,
would it not be much cheaper and a
great deal better, in the long run, for
the City of Lancaster to endeavor to
effect settlement with the plaintiff in
this action, than to continue the fight
at so great an expense? The talk that
is being made about the suit being
"squelched'' by the Supreme Court is
a poor argument for fighting the case.
The most that the Court will do will be
to set the judgment aside and return
the case for another trial. While The
HERALD holds no differences with those
who think the amount of damages
IS, excessive, it is of the opinion
that compromise and settlement will
be the best thing for the City of Lancas-
ter to do. A longer continuance of the
suit will in all probability only place the
contestants further apart, until the time
may come when the Taxpayers will have
bill of damages and costs to pay, that,
! were the same amount of money ex-
| pended in beautifyipp the city would