Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-03-24

jury, in rendering the verdict, seem to
have thought that Cook should be allowed
permanent pension, as the amount they
awarded, if invested at even per cent
interest. would give him a greater income
than he had ever been able to earn
Mr.. Nields followed Mr., Hoffeckcr, and
spoke until the noon adjournment.
The argument in favor Of new trial
in the case of Cook VS.. the Wilmington
City Electric Company was resumed ut
Friday afternoons session of court by
Mr.. Neids, who concluded al 3 O'Clock.
Mr.. Hoflecker spoke about 10 minutes
and closed by citing move authorities in
support of his motion for new trial.
Mr.. Bird then commenced his argument
in opposition to the motion, by saying
that he was never more surprised than he
was when he heard the reasons presented
for a new trial. In the Robinson case,
where he was awarded 5000 damages for
an injury caused by his client stepping
into hole in the pavement, although it
was shown that he followed his business
as an engineer every day, the jury rem
dered u verdict for that amount in his
favor. The counsel, Messrs. Lore and
Turner. who represented the city, came
into court and filed motion for q new
trial, giving as one of their principal rea-
sons that he damages awarded by the jury
were excessive and not warranted by the
testimony, and the court refused to CON
slider it. Juries frequently disagree, and
if in addition to that the court intends to
set verdicts aside or order new trials, cases
would never end
why God bless my soul and body
said MIR. Bird, ''if cases arc to be conducted
in that manner, we will never get done
trying one, as ii is almost impossible for
any jury to render verdict that will be
satisfactory to both sides" lie thought
he was now placed in the most ridiculous
position Of his life, in being called upon to
again argue q case on the same facts, that
had already been presented to the court
and jury, and by the latter decided. This
case, he contended, has been tried, and
fairly tried, and now it was being tried
again before two jurors instead OF II, but
the defendant is not satisfied with that,
and wants it tried third time before
another jury. The very proposition is
ridiculous, and he felt sure the court would
not entertain it. If the jury had, after
hearing the testimony of 10 witnesses,
given him but nominal verdict, he would
not have come in court and pleaded the
baby act, by asking that the verdict be set
aside or new trial granted. Mr.. Bird
then cited number of authorities in OPP
position to setting the verdict aside, or
granting Il new trial.
He closed at 4 o'clock, when Mr.. Nields
illiuc tiie cloSliiE argument Ill Deilalf OF q
new trial. Mr.. Nields did not finish until
8 o'clock, when Mr. Bird asked the court
TO render decision before adjourning,
Judge Cullen said that would be impos-
sible, as he wished to carefully consider
the matter, but that he would give d
decision early in May, or sooner If pos.
sible.
On motion of Mr.. Bird, the name OF
Joseph Finn, administrator. was substi-
tuted in place of the plaintiff i'll the case
of Henry S. Peace VS.. the johnson Forge
Company. This case will be tried at the
May term Of court and is an action to re-
cover S2000 damages. Peace was an EN-.
| ploye of the forge company and last July
was seriously injured while engaged al
work His injuries proved permanent, and
he entered the suit, but before it could bt
tried he committed suicide, while suffering
under an alteration of mind, caused, it i:
alleged, by his injuries. Therefore til,
name of his administrator is substituted
for his. as the plaintiff in the case.
There being no further business cour
adjourned until Monday, May 9th.