Evening journal., 1891-06-09
The WIFI DAMAGE CASE.
Evidence All In and Argument Bogus
BY senator Higgins.

Evidence All In aud Argument Begun
BY senator Hlggins.
The Superior Court was occupied yes
terday morning with the hearing Of the
case Of James e. Writ versus the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad Company for
damages The evidence offered turned
principally upon the point as to whether
Writ was physically disabled before the
time he received the injuyies and whether
he has been 30 much affscted since then
as he testified. The witnesses called
were DR.. Smith Cooper, Major w. Y.
Swiggeit, DR. Benjamin Thompson, DIR.
]. Paul Lukens, Dr.. Thomas N Brown.
Harrie T. Price, Uatharine McGrenerR
and John Batty Mrs. McGrenera's testi
mony was that Writ had often run" in
her cows and that be could run after
them well
The court reconvened at 10 o'clock
this morning. e. q Bradford appliad for
q rule to show cause why a writ Of
mandamus should not be issued in the
case OF Elizier Lee vs. the
General Steamship Company to compel
the company to produce its books for
examination. Lee claims that for some
time he was the general manager of the
company and is alss a stockholder He
claims that from information re.
ceived he has reason to believe
that the company is now issuing stock
at lower rate of interest than that
stipulated In the charter. 1t is on these
grounds that he. wants the books ex
amined The court stated that the
matter would be held under advisement
and decision rendered on Thur de-
Hba Wirf 4at,aanra roaa arat,,t Il. u
d o. Railroad Company was then
resumed Thomas Millner, the 3. & o.
timekeeper, was recalled to the stand
He testified to the length OF
time he had been In the en-
ploy Of the Baltimore and Ohio
Company. He was shown the entries on
the Pay roll and decla-ed that they were
In his handwriting He said he was
positive that Hobson was not at work on
September %, 1887, at which time Writ
swore Hobson gave him orders to 60 to
the scene OF the wreck
The next witness called was Thomas
3. Pugh. He testified, as timekeeper of
the B & o., that Writ worked thirty one
days Ia December, 1887 This witness
closed the testimony for the defence In
conclusion Mr. Bird offered the laws of
Maryland in relation to corporations AZ
part of his evidence
John 5. Carroll, Richard G. Jones.
Samuel Bale. and Patrick McEwen were
recalled by M higgins, to rebut this
evidence. Their evidence was the same
in all respects TO that which they had
given In the direct examination.
James S. Writ, the plaintiff in the
case was then recalled TO the stand He
said he could not identify
his signature to the receipt
he had signed when he received
money from the B. & o Relief Associa-
tion. He further stated that he did
not remember ever having been mem beI
of the association. He denied that DR.,
| Brown ever rendered medical service tc
himself or his family.
This closed all the testimony, and Mr.
Higgins opened argument for the plain
tiff He denied all contributory negli
gence aud claimed that the company was
to blame for allowing the car to com,
back without sufficient warning besns
| given to allow the men back OF It TO gel
out of the way.
Mr.. Higgins was still speaking at
o'clock, when the court took reces
until .. 30 o'clock.