The sun., 1890-01-14

In these days, when negligence suits
against corporations arc so numerous, q
good deal Of complaint is made on the part
OF the defendants that juries are apt to be
prejudlced against them; and they often as
cert that corporation in jury trial does
not stand so fair chance Of success as an
individual defendant.
There Is reason TO believe that complaints
Of this kind, 30 far as there is any founda-
ton for them, are due to some extent 10 the
curious means to which corporations have
been known to resort In order TO avert or
overcome claims against them.
An instance not unlikely to arouse preju-
dice of tho kind we mention was reported In
the newspapers o day or two ago. line
man employed by one Of the electric light
companies In this city had brought suit
against the company 10 recover $4,000 dam
ages for injuries alleged to have been sus-
tained by him In falling from an electric
light pole. What precise act or omission on
the part Of the defendant was charged to
have been negligent we are not informed;
but 1t is stated that the suit was soon to be
reached for trial. Under these circum-
stances, q foreman In tho employment Of
the electric light company made charge Of
larceny against the plaintiff In the negli-
gence suit, alleging that he saw him have a
quantity OF electric light wire In his
possession at date after he left the service
OF the company, and claiming that his pos
session Of tho wire must therefore, have
been unlawful The case was tried before
Police Justice KILBBETH on Friday, and the
lnenian testified that another lineman had
-. t-~ o.. L., ,tv.n, tl.
wire short distance and he had left 1t, as
requested, in q certain blacksmith shop. 1t
also appeared that the wire would have been
wholly useless to him, and that he could
have had no improper object in taking it.
The foreman, who was the complainant, at
first denied any knowledge on his part Of the
negligence suit which the lineman had
brought against the electric light company,
but subsequently stated facts showing that
he had been instructed by his employers to
look UP witnesses to be called in defence Of
that suit. Police Justice KILBRETH acquitted
the prisoner who, by the way. was the man
who cut down the body OF FEEKs. the cleo
trio light lineman who was burned to death
some weeks ago on the wires at Centre and
Chambers street, in this city.
It Is difficult to read the account Of this
abortive criminal prosecution without sus-
picon at least that it was instituted for the
purpose OF defeating the negligence suit in
which the lineman was plaintiff. Even II the
charge of larceny was made in good faith, 1t
would have been wiser to defer 1t until after
the trial of the action for damages; because
the impression produced by its unsuccessful
prosecution beforehand is more injurious to
the electric light company than anything
which they could possibly gain from it. Any
attempt on the part Of corporations to
gain undue advantage by unscrupulous
methods over those who sue them is not
only wicked but foolish. However 1t may
have been In past years, 1t Is now the fact
that q corporation which really has good
defence is tolerably certain to receive fair
treatment at the hands Of jury in this
State. In this city and in Brooklyn, where
by far the largest proportion OF negligence
cults against corporations is tried. verdicts
for the defendant are now by no means un-
common, and there Is every reason to think
that a corporation defendant will now In any
case fare just as we'll as an individual de-
fendant IL the defence put forward Is sound
and substantial.
=, Any company, however, which resorts to
improper methods In litigation. does an In
Jury not only to itself, but to those corpora
tions whose legal affairs are honestly con-
Quoted, by giving countenance to the popular
impression that corporations are utterly
soulless In their lawsuits.