The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-02-07
A DOLLAR VERDICT.
Which Judge sanderson of San Fran
cisco Refused to Accept.


cisco Refused to Accept.
The foreman of the jury patted
his knees with the paper containing
the verdict. The two opposing
counsel blinked at him and his fell
low-jurymen in their obvious efforts
to do little mind-reading on their
own account. The plaintiffs guard
ian wiped his six-year-old nose, and
the defendant, whose cart had run
over the child and broken his arm,
anxiously scanned tho faces of the
twelve men in the box. Presently
the judge came in from his cham
bers and took his seat.
The verdict was passed to the
clerk, who handed it up to Judge
Sanderson. His Honor looked at
the paper and passed it back to the
clerk, with the remark that he could
not make any sense out of it. AS he
did this he looked decidedly dis
pleased.
"Gentlemen of the jury" said the
clerk, "listen to your verdict: we
find for the plaintiff and assess the
damages against the defendant
Then the Judge frowned and there
was deep shade of asperity in his
voice.
Gentlemen of the jury" he said,
"the court cannot receive any such
verdict. The law does not know
such thing in this State as nominal
damages in an action like this. l
won't accept the verdict. 1t is not
reasonable. You should be brave
enough to find for the defendant if
you think he was not to blame. If
on the other hand you think he was
you should be brave enough to say
SO and give the plaintiff reasonable
damages. You may retire again,
gentlemen. Mr.. Clerk, hand that
paper back to the jury"
One of the jurymen arose and said
he understood from the testimony
that the doctor had been secured for
the payment of his services in at
tending the boy. The Judge replied
this had nothing to do with the
plaintiffs claim for damages. The
jury should bring in verdict for
one side or the other, but dollar
damages was nonsense. The doc
tors security for his claim had moth
ing to do with the case.
After half an hours reconsidera-
tion of the testimony the jury re-
turned into court with . verdict for
$50 damages for the plaintiff.
The action was entitled Andrew
Boyle, a minor, by Catherine Boyle,
his general guardian, versus James
Wyatt. The complaint asked for
specific damages amounting to $3.50
for medical attendance, and $500
general damages. The injury was
sustained on May "a, 1890, when An
drew, then years of age, was run
over on Valencia street by Wyatt's
two-wheeled cart. Mrs. Boyle, with
her child and young woman, had
just stepped off Valencia cable
car, and Wyatt's son, boy 16 years
old, was driving the cart in the same
direction. Before they were aware
of the presence of the child he was
under their wheel. The elder Wyatt,
who was sitting by his son, jumped
out and. picking up little Andrew,
carried him to the sidewalk before
the mother knew what had hap
pened. He then carried him in his
arms to the Office of DR.. f. w. Har-
ris, close by, and told the doctor he
would see that he was paid.
The defense produced witnesses
who testified that Mrs. Boyle had
blamed the young woman with hel
for allowing the child to get away
from them, and also that Wyatt was
not driving fast and that the acci
dent was unavoidable.
On the witness-stand the doctor
stripped little Andrew and showed
the jury where his arm had been
broken in two places. The fractures
had been repaired and the arm was
apparently as good as ever. The
fact then developed that the arm
had been broken second time soor
after the healing of the first two
! fractures, and that the mother, either
in abusing or chastizing the child
was responsible for the second break
This testimony, however, was only
,, in the nature of hearsay and wa:
stricken out.