The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-05-26
THE COURTS.
u,Ited states Court.

On Monday the Grand and Petit Jurles
OF the United States Circuit Court will be
impaneled, but no cases will be called Tor
trial until the day following On Tuesday
morning the jury cases on the civil docket
will be peremptorily called for trial in the
order in which they appear on the docket,
commencing with the earliest case. A
calendar OF the cases will be published in
the morning papers OF Tuesday. Attorneys
are expected TO be present at the call oil
the Tuesday calendar.
Some months ago THE APPEAL gave a
history OF the case Of Warren, Love d Co.
vs.. II. Furstenhcim, through his executor.
II was an action Tor damages for mis-
representing the financial standing OF
merchant IN Arkansas, q customer OF Fur
etenheim, 10 Warren, Love d Co., adj
yanced money. Tho conversation was be-
tween Warren and Furstcnheim on the
floor OF the Cotton Exchange at st. Louis,
no one else being present. There was n
trial Ia Furstenhcims lifetime and the
Jury disagreed. Aitcrward Fustonhcim
died. Now, on the second trial, Warren
IL offered as witness 10 prove the CONVEX
saton, and Furstenheim's executor Oh
jects and the parties by agreement submit
the question to the court without jury.
Judge Hammond decided Yesterday that
he (Waren) il not competent, aud tho
suit Is dismissed.
Under the act Of Congress- Revised
Statutes, Section S5S, the TACT that at a
former trial, during the icstator's lifetime,
he testified ~ To the conversation with the
plaintiff, and was present 10 cross.exnmino
The plaintiff, also then tcstiiying in his own
behalf, does not render the plaintiff com
potent 20 testify, although the testimony
Of the deceased party might be reproduced
on the second trial by the evidence OF
those who heard IT,
Another decision was also handed down,
~ follows
Lockharl, administrator Of Patrick la
ney vs.. Little Rock x Memphis Railroad
Company and Others.
There was verdict for 5000 damages
for killing Haney by collision with loaded
cans left on the main track Of the Cneasa-
pcake Road. The Court overruled the
motion for a new trial. and the following
are the head notes OF the decision:
]. Where two railroads have q traffic in
ierchangc OF ears, II one sets loaded ears on
the track o, the other nc an unusual time
Of the night aud does not give notice or set
out danger signals OF warning, whereby an
tulttNt VI Atlt NllltI lhAil ~ hllltu Nv iNi-
lision with the obstruction, IL is liable In
damages for thc negligence.
.. II seems that both companies may be
liable la such q case. the mans own com
pany because IL must iurnisha clear track,
or because the other company ispro hac It's
agent or servant " the n'-t,er, but where
the court Withheld n charge on that point
because plaintiffs counsel did not wish Ia
cmbarfass bis ease With doubtful propO-
siiions, this Il not discrimination 10y the
court against the other for which lac H. en-
titled 10 a new trial 4 joint wrungdoer
cannot complain that his companions In
wrong escape liability, as ground Of new
trial.
3. A municipal ordinance limiting the
speed OF engines passing through city To
n certain rate II generally for the benefit ui
eiungcrs Ia thc railroads using the streets,
and u IL doubtful " the railroad employs.
can have any benefit oi them in case OF
collision between trains; but certainly u
the rate Of speed does not cnusc the injury
II is immatcrial In such cases, especial,
whore the victim OF the accident Is IN n,
way in control 81 the engine aud not 70
tponsiblc for the speed.
4. Where the management OF the road
WIS at the time OF tho accident In the
hands OF trustees and company purchas'
Ing IRON them, both are liable.
D. II II not contributory negligence, for
switchman TO ride on the front ioot.boar,
OF his switch engise while going to IL
work.