Evening journal., 1889-12-11
ARGUMENTS ANS LAW.
Summing Up for the Plaintiff In the
Wallace Damage Case.

Evidence for the plaintiff In rebuttal
was taken in the Wallace damage care
before the Superior Court yesterday af-
ternoon. Stephen j. Barnes, Joseph
Sinnex aud ex-Police Officer Welsh
testified in regard to the lights at
the Madison street station. John
Fordham contradicted the testimony Of
Witness Tuddy for the defence J. ).
McCrea said he assisted Mrs. Wallace to
Mrs Hunters house on the night of the
accident. William A. Shannon had seen
the light at the station turned out before
the train left
At3I5 o'clock the evidence was all ia
and Mr.. Bird addressed the court ON the
law. He made the following propositions,
arguing them at length and supporting
his argument by lengthy excerps of law
and parallel cases
/. The plaintiff was a passenger on the
train Of the railroad company and that
company is bound to exercise the utmost
care. not only to safely carry her, but to
provide q safe landing place surrounded
by conditions reasonably safe.
g. If the company locate their station
in dangerous place they are bound to
exercise care and diligence ia proportion
to the danger.
When court adjourned Mr. Bird was
arguing the second proposition.
Court opened at o'clock this morning.
Chief Justice Comegys had short con
versation with Lawyers Bird and Brad
ford about the abnormal state of the
weather in the present year. Levi q.
Bird, Esq, continued his statement OF
the second proposition, as follows
The condition at station should be
such that passengers should depart from
stations with safety.
g. Negligence of the company being
proved, the question whether the com
pany is liable, is to be decided by the
jury. If the injury is produced by the
wrongful act during the caIsation, the
proximate cause is traced to the defend
ant company There was no intervening
cause; for from the time that they left
the platform they aimed direct for tn,
light. They were as careful as possible
Mr. Bird cited authorities in similar
cases. In case in Wisconsin, woman
was left at country station at which
there was no light. She went away from
the station and got lost in the fields Sh'
returned TO the station for shelte
against the wind and fell down stat
way and was injured. She received dam
ages in a suit against the railroad com
pany.
Mr.. Bird concluded at IL o'clock an
General Biggs addressed the jury 70
, the plaintiff. speaking for one hour Mr.
Bird said, laughingly, that he was salts
fed I, have the Judges charge immedi
. ately and let the matter go to the jury
L. c. Vandergrift, opened for the defen
dant railroad company, on questions o
law. He held that the plaintiff could no
, recover, because she had safe egress fror
the station. He asked that the jur
be instructed on this point
) and proceeded to deny the sppli
] cation of Mr.. Birds citation
! with few exceptions to tn
! case. BE claimed that tn
accident had resulted not from th
. absence of lights on the company's prop
! erty, but that rather the plaintiff had M
right there and was trespasser. Cour
adjourned until 2 30 o'clock this aftei
: noon. Mr.. Vsndegrift continued his ac
dress to the court on points of law. Nj
I. Bradford will address the jury to MORO
morning.
$ Look at Yerger's SOC Pictures, read