Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1889-05-21

. Superior Court re-convened at 10
O'Clock this morning with Chief Justice
ComeRys and Associate Judges Houston
and Paynter on the bench.
Mr.. Constable resumed his closing ar
gument for the plaintiff In the case OF
Henrietta V. Parvis We. the p, w. Il b.
Railroad Company, and claimed that at
the time the accident occurred the tram
was behind time and was running at an
unusual rate of speed. He reviewed the
evidence Of the witnesses and said that
there were EN- of them who were in the
vicinity at the time of the accident none
OF whom heard the bell ring, and he
thought their testimony should outweigh
that OF the engineer and fireman who tes-
titled that the bell was rung. He alleged
that the only men who did hear the bell
rung was those who would have lost
their positions had they dared go on the
stand and testify that they did not hear
1t.
He raid that If the bell had BEEN rung
the majority of the passengers on the
train would have heard II, and as the
company knew that there would be a suit
about the accident, they would have left
no store un'urned 10 have had them in
court, TO testify to that fact. But In
p ce Of tla', they only produced three
or or witnesses to show that warning
W given, and these mon, being in the
employ OF the company, are interested
parties. He said that IL was Mrs. Parvls'
turn to-day, tomorrow II might he one
Of the jurors, and the only way to put a
$ OPP to this carelessness Oh the part of
iailroad companies is to held them to a
strict accountability and make them pay
for II. When these corporations are
taught that 1t does not pay to multiply
widows and orphans In this State, then
there will be watchmen and safety gates
aud underground and overhead crossings
provided, and not until then.
Mr.. Constable closed his very able ar
gument at so O'Clock, when the jury
was charged by the Chief Justice. He
case, and the evidence which had been
presented by each side. lie then pro-
ceeded to explain the law applicable to
the running of trains by railroad COM
panies. In this case the defendant is
charged with negligence In running a
train without giving proper signals,
through which negligence II is alleged
the husband OF the plaintiff lost his life.
1t must, however, be remembered q at It
Is supposed that Ordinary care was OBJ
served by the servants OF the company,
where they used all the care and precau.
tion possible under the circumstances. A
person approaching a railroad must also
use all due care and precaution for his
own protection. and II he fails to do so is
guilty of criminal negligence.
1t Is of course the duty OF the engineer
to give warning upon approaching o
crossing, and the fact that he failed to
perform that duty rendered him liable to
n fine, but would not relieve the com
pany from liability. 1t is not known
whether or not DIR. Parvis was on the
lookout for the train, aud II be was, and
undertook to cross ahead of It, he as
sumed the risk of the undertaking. These
are facts that the jury will have TO deter
mine from the testimony.
The charge was concluded and the
jury retired at / 20 o'clock.
shortly after the jury retired all the
other jurors were discharged until s
o'clock this afternoon. Nothing f. rtheI
was done until Court took recess at
o'clock. Just before the recess the Cour
decided that the jury in the Parvls cast
should be furnished with dinuer.