St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1890-11-08
Queer Railroad Lawsuits.
A WIDOWS cow, A GIRLS DoWRY, A FARM
ERs INSURANCE, A COSTLY ENGLISH
MALADY.

A WIDOWS COW, A GIRLS DOWRY, FARM
ER's INSURANCE, A COSTLY ENGLISH
MALADY.
81 have been for twenty years counse
for railroads defending suits for damages
resulting or alleged to have resulted IRON
some fault of a railroad company or it.
-mployees, said a well-known New York
State lawyer, tand have had to conte>1
some most ridiculous and novel claims
| OUT no matter how ridiculous the clallu,
have never yet known jury composed
| chiefly of farmers to fail to render a YER
| dict against the railroad. l remember a
case. for instance, in central New York
| county, where a farmers wife was the
| plaintiff Her husband was killed by the
! cars. and the company paid the widow the
| statutory amount of damages, $4,000. II
seems that the farmer had COW which
was valuable one. The butter made
| from this cow he had contracted to delive
for one year to village merchant for
300. The COW was eccentric, and would
permit no one to milk her but the farmer
His death, therefore, left his widow IN 3
predicament The cow had to be MIXED
or sold for beef, and the widow did no
want to sacrifice so valuable beast IN
that way, All friendly overtures to induce
the cow to let herself be MIXED failing in
their object, she was hobbled and secured
with ropes and enforced milking at
tempted. The animal in her struggles to
prevent what she doubtless considered an
outrage, injured herself so badly that she
had to be killed. The widow thought the
matter over, and became convinced that
the railroad company WAS responsible for
the death of the valuable cow in having
killed the only person who could handle
her, AID that it was also liable for the 800
the COW would have brought in by the
sale of her butter for that year. The
worthy woman found q lawyer who
agreed with her, and suit was brought
against the company to recover 500, the
value of the COW, and 800 for the butter
she was to have produced. The jury was
one in which the agricultural idea FREEDOM
mated, and the widow got a verdict for
$3.50 and costs.
In the same locality well-todo young
farmer was engaged to marry the daugh-
ter of a farmer in neighboring town
There had been some objection on the
part of the girls father to the marriage,
but that had been overcome by the young
nan agreeing to settle $1,000 on the girl
when she became his wife. On his way
to the farmers house on the day he WAS
to be married, he was so badly hurt in
collision on railroad that he died next
day. The young mans only relative was
his mother, and the railroad company set
tied with her for the sons death. The
father of the girl the young man was to
have married brought suit in her name
against the company to recover $1,000, OF
the ground that by causing the death OF
his daughters afianced husband, it had
prevented the settlement of that sum on
the girl. This case was tried before a
jury necessarily mainly composed of farm
ers, and they promptly returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. 1t is hardly necessary to
say, however, that their judgement was
subsequently reversed
A similar case WAS that of a farmer
who had neglected to renew the policy OF
insurance on his house, which was fine
one, the farmer being one of the richest
in central New York. He started for
town one afternoon for the purpose of re-
ne wing the insurance. At railroad
crossing on the way freight train had
been derailed, and the road was blocked
so it was impossible for wagons to cross.
The farmer waited for two hours in the
road, and there still being no thorough
fare he returned home, intending to trans
act his business next day. That night, as
fate wonld have it. his house caught fire
and was destroyed with all it's contents
he entire loss being placed by the farmer
at $4,000, which | have every reason L
know was not exaggerated. The farmei
sued the railroad company to recover thai |
amount, basing his claim on the fact tina
he was prevented from renewing his policy !
IF insurance on the property by the acct
lent on the railroad which barred his |
way to town, whittier he was going for
he express purpose of reinsuring. The |
Jury found no difficulty whatever in being
# the same mind with the farmer and |
gave him judgment for $4,000 and COSTS
We had to try that case three times, and
inslly settled it.
but people in this country who are
always for some excuse to bring a suit for
manages against railroad companies have
lot yet been seized with disease known
n England as railroad spine The mall
Idy is not very common one, though,
wen in that country, but it has beer very
;ostly one to railroads there, as far as it
las gone. This disease was discovered by
prominent London physician, who was
|. few years ago passenger on railroad
rain somewhere in England and the car
le was in jumped the track and jolted
oughly along on the sleepers for long
istance before the train was stopped
The physician found, few days afterward
hat his spine wasn't acting exactly right,
nd finally it became SO obstreperous as to
ot act at all. He became unable to attend
0 the calls of his profession, which, when
Vhen he brought suit against the railroad
ompany for damages, claiming that the j
olt1ng of the derailed car had disabled I
i'm, he swore yielded him 100000 a
ear, The suit resulted in judgement in I
avor of the physician for $250,000, the
srgest amount ever recovered from rail
bad for personal damage. The affliction {
'hich had befallen the London physician |
ecame known as railroad spine,' and | |
now of at least three subsequent cases of
in England which have resulted in judy +
tents against railroads in amounts varying 7
ON $4,000 to $100,O00."-Neao York 5
I'M. t
Wit and Humor =