The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1886-12-09
been injured by such acts he may rot

! been injured by sueh acts he may Eot
| com plain or recover
II the defendant has violated tn e
criminal statute he may be cansel to
answer for s1ch violation in criminal
| prosecution: but no cause of action arises
\ 10 the plaintiff, uiieSS he can show that
| such violation resulted in t!is inJ dry COM
| piainsd OF.
Tne recovery TO beiimits.i to the Injury
occas;oae;l 10 plaintiffs laad as deScribei
! in the petition 10y the coal SltcS anu re-
| fuse thrown or deposited as before cx pain
| ed since the ist dty of March, iSS}. ana the
9th day of \ sril, lSSj.
| II the Jury therefore tind from the eTl-
dence that the damages to the plaintif :
land or Il portion OF the dam igeS Resulted!
from the deposit ofslac.S or refuse or screen
ings deposited in or on the BANKS OF M tne
stream through the plaintiffs lands By the
defendant before the iSt day of March,
1855 or since the 18th day OF \ prIl, 1886, the
jury will exclude all such damages from the
| verdict
! Again, Il Is claimed that before the GRcst
date named and during all the time co,a-
planned OF in the petition, other mining
companies along the creek above piaintiff s
! land and along tributaries eElptying there
in deposited in such stream. their coal SLACK
aud refuse matter, or a. places where the
same was washed into the stream so that
| it was carried and deposited upon the
lands of the plaintiff cluSing the injury
complained OF.
Ii you ind this to be true, the defendant
| is not liable for such deposits OF their re-
suits. the damages, il any fheTeiro:il, anu
in estimating tse damages In this case,
such deposits and their results are to be
| carefully excluGed from your verdict.
| So that you viii understand tisss defend
ant Is TO- be neld liable, il at ,,ll. for only
| such injury as was occasioneei to the plain
| THIS land by the slack and screenings de-
posted by 1t, as explained above
! Again, gentlemen. the Defendant Dot on
| ly puts in issue the fact OF the Injury COM
| planned of and its responsibility therefor,
/ but 1t says further, th;,t II there was any
! injury 10 the pluiutin's land because OF
SLACK aud screenings being deposited there
! on, that the defendant contributed TO said
| injury. by himself operating coal mine
! up said creek durin, the time complained
/ OF and that he deposited coal slack and
! screenings from his own mime in said
stream, and that whatever injury the plain
! tif,s land may have received was from SAID
slack and refuse matter.
Upon this subject the law IS that where
one by his own negligence or wrongful
act contributes to bis own injury he may
not recover for said injury against any one.
II, therefore, you shall find the f2ct 10 De,
that during the time complained OF in the
petition, the defendant operated a mine up
| said creek AID Intentionally deposited the
slack thsreirofn i'll the stream, anu tile
same ocaasione't ia part the Injury to his
! land he here cOta plains OF, he cannot re-
cover in this Csc, even though you should
! find that during the Sane time the defend
ant also operated mines and depositei
slack in sail stream that occs.sioned said
/ injury IN part.
Upon this issue the burden is upon the
defendant TO satisfy you by the greater
| weight of the evidence that SAID plaintiff
dii so operate said mine. deposited tine
| slack therefron, in said stream, and th;tt
the same WIS deposited upon plaintiffs
land
To have this result you must find that
the plaintiff operated the mine AMI done
the wrongful act described between March
LIST, ISS5 ana April 81, lSS5, any mining or
act before that time, March 'SS, will not
have such effect.
Ifyou shall find that the defendant done
the acts complained OF In tie petition,
that such acts had the effect alleged IN the
petition ana caused the injcry complained
OF OF any part OF ii, and You shall further
find that the plaintiff did hot, during the
time named in the petition. contribute To
said injury. then your verdict mast be Tor
the plaintiff, and in such case you would
be csiI.et upon to consider the a:noln. of
his recovery.
---Iu this case the plaintiff, if entitled to
recover, is entitled to Recover cCmpcnS3-
tory damages which in law l. an amount
that will compensate or make him whole !
Tor the injury sustained and loss suffered.
IfyOu shall ind the defendant IL haze
been guilty of the things com3ia;ped OF |
in the petition, and that such slack re-
fuse, etc, was deposited upon the plain
tiirs land, as aVered in the petition, !
or persOGs along said creek contributed
20 this same result during the time stat !
ed IN the petition, deposited slack aud |
refuse along and in said stream. so that |
the same was also deposited upon plain |
tifI-s land and contributed along with |
:ae acts or the defendant 10 the injury !
of plaintiffs land, complained Of
In such case the defendant is Eos iia- /
bic for the combined results OF all the
deposits.
1t may be difficult 70 determine how
much dirt or slack came from each /
mine, but the relative proportion thrown
in by each Will form guide, ana IN
such GO Sc you will look through the en-
tire testimony, and if you tind the deten-
dant has contributed to the injury com
plaineG of, determine the exteA ei Sueh