Evening journal., 1889-10-01
AWAITING THE VERDICT.
CLOSE OF THE ARGUMENTS IN
The PARviS CASE.


closed their evidence on Saturday after
noon The tables at which the counsel
sat were covered with calf bound vol |
umes of legal authorities and many la
dies occupied seats within the bar, alert |
with the expectation of listening to the |
eloquent arguments Of the legal giants.
Senator Gray offered to submit the case l
to the jury without argument. but the |
counsel for the plaintiff had made care
full preparations and wanted TO argue.
The court allowed each side three hours. !
Mr.. Constable submitted few points Of |
law to the court, and at 10 o'clock Mr. |
Lore appeared for the plaintiff. He sub
mitted the following;
Prayers to the Court.
Citing numerous authorities in sup
port Of each.
The defendant is bound to use reason
able care and discretion in passing cross
ings on the public highway, the proper
degree of care and discretion
to be judged by the jury.
2 If the bell was rung the jury are to
decide whether that was sufficient mea
sure of reasonable care and diligence. II
they think the whistle should have been
blown, and by the neglect to do so, DR..
Parvis was killed, the plaintiff is enti-
tied to recover.
3. The plaintiff is required to show
negligence on the part Of the defendant,
which materially contributed to DR.. Par
vis's death but is not bound to prove
that DR. Parvis was himself not guilty
Of any negligence contributing to his
death.
4 II the jury believe that Dr. Parvis,
while lawfully travelling on the public
high way, was killed by the defendants
train through contributory negligence,
the defendant must satisfy the jury that
he was guilty Of the lack of ordinary
care and caution.
s. The plaintiff will be entitled to re
cover unless It can be shown, that but
for the want of ordinary care and caution
on the part of Or. Parvis, the misfortune
could not have happened.
g. II verdict is found for the plain
| tiff, the damages must not only be for
past loss or such loss as the plaintiff has
suffered, but also for what she will suffer.
Mr.. Lore then addressed the jury with
a concise and telling review OF the evil
dence. he concluded at 4.45 o'clock.
Argument on the other Side.
Mr.. Massey opened for the defence
He submitted the following prayers for
instructions to the jury:
1. Unless the jury believe that the &C
oident was due solely to the negligence Of
the defendant. the plaintiff cannot re-
cover.
2. 1t must appear to the jury that
there was contributory negligence on
the part Of the deceased.
3. If DR.. Parvis neglected to exercise
due care and caution in looking for an
approaching train as he approached the
crossing, he was contributorily negligent
and the jury must find for defendant.
If the Jury find that Dr. Parvis was
familiar with the crossing and its sur
roundings, he was bound to exercise a
degree Of care in crossing the tracks, and
his omission to do so was contributory
negligence.
4. II the deceased could have seen the
train coming from point between the
house occupied by Clara Blackiston and
the crossing the jury are warranted in
presumiRg that he did not look, or If so,
did not heed what he saw, and the plain
tiff cannot recover.
6. If the jury believe that no warning
signal was given Of whistle or bell YET
that the deceased was familiar with the
crossing and could have seen the train
|
was guilty Of contributory negligence in
driving upon the track.
z. If the Jury find that DIR. Parvis wa:
J familiar with the crossing, and that the
train was a regular one, on or about its
{ schedule time, it was his duty to look and
/ listen for it, at places in the highway
which the senses of sight and hearing
| would have been most available, aud II
! by listening or looking from sucE
places, he could have heard tbs
train and avoided the accident and die
not so look, he is guilty of contributor
[ negligence or il he looked and saw thu
train and yet attempted to cross thu
track, he was likewise guilty Of contribu
= tory negligence, regardless of the rate o.
+ speed of the train or whether or no
; warning was given by bell or whistle.
8. That the statute Of the state il
e force at the time of the accident proved
! that either bell OF whistle was sufficien
warning at crossing. And If the bel
F.; was rung on the engine that collidel
with DR.. Parviss carriage, the company
! was not negligent, and greater weigh
must be given to the testimony of tn
: witness who testified that they heard the
!. bell. than TO the testimony of those VIII
E said they did not hear it.
d Mr. Massey was still speaking whei
court adjourned until o'clock this morn
e ing.
d The Closing Arguments.
Court convened at 8 o'clock this morn
+ ing and Mr.. Massey continued his argu
ment to the jury for the plaintiff, con
+, Guiding at 10 o'clock.
{ The court room was well filed wit
people, who listened with intent atten
n ton while the Dover lawyer delivered hi
{ rounded sentences, in stentorian, Blu
{ melodious tones. Several ladies' sa
9 within the bar and young law
yers and law students tool
q in all that was said, AM
y made mental notes of methods of reason
ing and logic. Chief Justice Comegy
and Associate Judge Paynter had 70
company on the bench, Rev Jacob Todd
D. D., Of Grace M. E. Church, who So
: beside the chief justice; Miss Hattie
n Higgins. niece of the Senator; Mrs. II
(. H. Carter, wife of the superintendent o
% the p, w. & railroad; Judge Grub
=. and George A. Elliott, Esq.
After Massey had concluded his argu
ment, Senator Gray began the closin
q speech to the jury for the defence, an
u spoke until H. 80 o'clock. His address
was eloquent and interesting, and his re
/ view of the evidence very advantageou
n TO the defence.
!. An incident Of interest is that Will
!. Senator Gray was denouncing the defenc
e and deploring the accident, showing hoy
II DIR. Parvis contributed to it, Mr.. Lor
and Mr.. Massey were pacing the corrido