Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-03-17

for The company. Next Thursday was
selected for argument Court ADJOURNED
until 10 o'clock Monday morning. :,
Argument in the case OF John II. Look
VS.. Wilmirrton City Electric Company
began in superior court Monday morning.
Immediately after the opening OF court
Levi G. Bird cited law authorizes appiiyaple
10 the case. continuing uhtii "a uloeh'
when Andrew Il. Sanborn began the OPEN
ing argument Mr.. Sanborn talked an
hour, during which time be carefully re,
viewed the testimony anu cOmmchteu
thereon. lie asked for $4,000 damages,
calculating that 8 per cent interest on that
sum would amount to what Cook couid
earn at his trade If he were able to WORK.
]. II. Hoffecker, Jr, consumed 70 minutes
in replying to Mr.. Birds citations, after
which he began his address TO the jury.
He rapidv sifted the evidence ami con-
cludcd ut / o'clock. when recess was taken
for an hour and half.
All of Monday afternoons session
of court was consumed ny MIR. Bird,
with his closing argument for the plain
tiff in the case of John Il. Cook VS.. the
Wilmington City Electric Company
He spoke in his usual earnest manner,
and in conclusion said that he wanted
verdict for the entire $4,000 claimed,
md that he would rather have nothing
| than verdict for $4,000 or $4,000. He
| closed about o'clock, when court al
| iourned until 10 o'clock a. m. Tuesday.
| Tuesday morning the jury was charged
by Judge Cullen. lie said HAT this is a
case of tho greatest importance to the
| public, as by it will be determined the
responsibility of firm or company
manufacturing, generating or handling
any article that is dangerous to human
| life or limb.
The Judge then reviewed the case and
the testimony given on both sides, with
the grounds on which the suit was
brought, and said that in every business
where there is any danger ii is the duty
of the person or persons engaged in 1t
TO use every precaution aud all means
at their command to protect their en-
ployes and the public from injury. Ii
they failed TO do this, no matter how ex-
pensive the means might be, they were
| guilty of criminal negligence, and a
| person injured had n right to recover.
This is the law bearing on such
cases, and it would be the duty Of the
Jury to fully consider it, Ii was also the
duty of the jury TO consider whether
tho wire was broken by the violeace Of
the storm, or some other unavoidable
cause, or by defect, which could Ave
been remedied by due care and uili-
| gence on the part of the company. They
must also decide if the company had
adopted every possible means 10 ascer-
tain if there was broken wire lying in
the street, cndangering life or limb.
On the other hand, the question arises
did the defendant, in passing along the
street after the storm, use due care to
avoid walking into the wires? If he did
not, he is guilty of contributary negli-
gence, and not entitled to recover In
reference to the amount of damages he
said it was matter that rested entirely
with the jury. If they believe that he
is entitled TO verdict, it will be their
duty to award him reasonable amount,
sufficient in their opinion to compensate
him for his injuries and lost time.
The charge occupied half an hour in
its delivery, and the jury then retired.
a VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.
Shortly after o'clock in the afternoon
the jury came into court and returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff for
$4,000.
Mr.. Holfccker, for defendant, gave
notice of u motion for new trial, and
| was given uHlll rIluuy W ulc ItuSOls III
support therefor.
AT II o'clock the remainder of the
general panel were discharged from any
further attendance at this court, and in
discharging them tine judge remarked
that they had had hard time.
The case of Isaac C. Pyle, VS.. Masder
Vaughn, was settled by an award OF
81, $50 to the plaintiff. This was an ac-
ton to recover $l,G339l, with, two
years interest for the board of the de
ceased and her servant at the Clayton
House,
tAdditiona, court netSs on mn paC'.l