Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1889-05-23
which be had prepared, and explained II to

which he had prepared, and explained It to
the juty.
Benjamin T. Craddook said he drove
down tue road with DR.. Pnrvls one evening
abont week previous to tho accident, and
stopped near the crossing to watch for the
tram. Tine train was coming south which
ne saw, without oiniculty, 10 ample lime to
Mr.. Douyler testified to taking obserya.
lions by which he demonstrated that from
the frogtown crossing clear view OF the
south-bound track was clearly visible for q
distance OF 1,l00 feet.
Nathaniel Williams, who was passenger
ON the train that collided with DR.. Parvls'
carriage said the train was on time that
evening. When the train stopped the rear
eni was about 800 feet south OF the cross
Ing. MIR. Williams said there was no OBJ
sttnction to conceal view of the track
from the bridge over the county road near
the crossing.
Conductor John T. Layfleld, who was In
charge OF the train at the time. gave the
details OF the accident and testified to
Hiding the body OF DR.. Parvis and taking
II TO Mlddletown.
During the afternoon City Solicitor
Turner submitted motion for new trial
In the case OF o. Brooks Foster VS.. the
mayor and Council of Wilmington, and
stated that he would flo his reasons In
support OF the motion at the usual time.
Court adjourned until 10 O'Clock Saturday
morning.
In the case of Mrs. parvls VS.. the p, W.
a u. Il. r. Co. on Saturday morning James
Gale, colored, for the defence, testified to
hearing the ringing OF the hell as the train
which oolllded with DR., Parvis' carriage
approached Frogtown crossing. Contrary
TO the testimony Of the other witnesses, this
CftnaQQ tnniEfaA that nm "a nla ~ Nha
accident II was warm and thawing Instead
OF cold and blustery.
David Allen, Delaw are Division track
foreman, gave testimony to the effect that
q good view OF the track from the APP
proachee to the Frogtown crossing was not
materially interierred with by the hedge
that grows beside the railroad. This hedge
was trimmed In the spring OF 1887, and had
been trimmed once since DR.. Parvis' death.
Constable Thomas Reardon made an ex-
animation OF the Frogtown crossing, and
was there at about Ito o'clock this morn
ing, when the south.bound Norfolk express
passed by. he stood in the centre OF the
public road, i44 feet from the centre OF the
south-bound track. From this point OF OBJ
servatlon, he saw tho headlight OF the loco
motive as II passed the phosphate mill up
the road, and from short distance below
the phosphate mill 10 the crossing he could
DOT lub euliID tIhius 1uO uHOeDuhlb
according to previous testimony, is about
1.l0O feet north OF the crossing. Mr.. Rear.
don said the bell OF the locomotive rang
before the crossing was reached and con-
tinued ringing until after IL was passed.
William W. Pritchett, who accompanied
Reardon corroborated the observations
taken.
Ex.Mayor John P. Almond also testified
to making observations at the Frogtown
crossing on Thursday evening, aud at a
point on the county road log feet from bs-
tween the two tracks Of the railroad OBJ
served the south.bourd evening train com
ing. and first saw IL at the phosphate fac
tory.
Chief OF Police Swiggett, Water Commits
sioner william 7. Porter and Street and
Sewer Director Joseph L. Carpenter, Jr.,
who were with Mr.. Almond at the tlme,
gave similar testimony.
DefendAnts counsel desired to Introduce
In evidence reoently-taken photograph OF
the Frogtown crossing. Plaintiffs counsel
objected The photograph was admitted.
It was taken on Thursday last.
Here the defeRoe closed.
The plaintiff. In rebuttal, called Martin
d. BuIris to testify with respect TO the
hedge along the track, and other physical
conditions OF the Frogtown crossing, from
a plot which Mr.. Burris had prepared. The
defendant objected that this was testimony
that should have been presented 10 the
plaintiffs opening. Argument continued
until 2 O'Clock, when court took recess
for one hour.
During the mornings session City 30
licltor Turner filed his reasons for new
trial In the case OF O. Brooks Foster vs. the
city OF Wilmington. They we're. That the
verdict was against the evidence, against
the law and against the charge OF the court;
and that Foster mover was police ofticer
OF the city OF Wilmington, for services In
which capacity he sued the city and re-
covered verdict. The motion for new
trial will be argued and decided later In the
term.
AtSaturday afternoons session Of court
the hearing Of testimony in the case Of
Par Wis vs.. p, W. d B. Railroad Com.
papy was concluded. DR.. William II.
Pierson, Joseph Bggs, Robert Z. OoCh-
ran, Henry A. Rowland, James L. Shall
cross, Joseph Daniel, Alexander Melton
and Thomas X. Hopkins testified to the
dangerous character Of the FfOgtown
crossing, where DIR. Parvis was killed.
There was hitch In the progress of
the case of Mrs. Henrietta v. Parvis VS..
the p, W. IL B. Railroad COMPANY, ut
Mondsy mornings session u court, caused
by the absence OF Albert Constable, Esq,
one OF plaintiffs counsel Mr. Constable
lives of Elkton and his journey TO Will
mington was delayed by an accident on
the p, W. & b. railroad, between North
East and Oharlestown, carly that morning.
A freight train was wrecked ia suoh
manner as to interfere vita travel on tho
road for several hours. at 1913 Mr..
Constable arrived aud argument WIS be-
gun. The court limited each side to
three hours. There was goodly attend
ance In the court room, and the bar Waa
crowded with those anxious to hear the
argument.
Mr.. Lore. for the plaintiff, opened by
presenting to the oourt the points upon
which be desired the jury to be charged.
They we're:
/. The DEFENDANTS bound, when cross-
Ing public highways, to exercise reason
able care and diligence in warning traV-
elers of the approach Of trains, the quea-
ton of what is such reasonable care and
diligence to depend upon the oiroum-
stances OF the case, which are TO be
Judged by the Jury.
q II the bell Of the engine was RING,
az required by the statute, 1t is within
the province of the jury to determine
whether such ringing OF the bell was q
sufficient measure OF reasonable care and
diligence; and IL the jury believed such
reasonable care required the whistle to
be blown, and IN consequence Of the
failure to blow the whistle DR.. Parvis
was killed, the plaintiff ia entitled to re-
cover.
s. The plaintiff Is required to prove
some negligent act or omission on the
part of the defendant, which caused the
death of DR.. Psrvis, but she is not bound
to prove that DR.. Parvis was not guilty of
any contributory negligenesi and unless
such oontributory negligence is proved
by the defendant, the jury must assume
that 1t did not exist.
4. IL the Jury believe DR.. Parvis came
to his death while lawfully travelling the