Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-03-02

the accident and found him confined 10
his bed, The fifth Or sixth rib was torn
loose from the frame near the stcrnum,
and there was an abrasion OH tile left
arm The arm was paralyzed. The
witness was of the belief that paralysis
was due to injuries sustained to certain
muscles of the arm. The plaintiff here
rested.
Mr.. Iilles, for the defence, called DIR.
Joseph II, Pyle, who testified that he
visited Butler Ford November 18th,
! 1891 Ford said he had some fractured
| ribs Upon examination witness could |
! find no fractures of the ribs. There were |
no Commissions or abrasions. There was
| no paralysis Of the left arm, which fact |
/ the witness determined by pricking the |
| arm with a pin.
George I. johnson, colored, testified |
that he was employed by the Charles |
| Warner Company. He remembered the |
| day the accident occurred. lie was re-
| turning from Peter j. Ford's establish
ment, and was driving the mortar
wagon which injured the plaintiff.
Witness was explaining why he
] drove along the right side of the
car instead of avoiding that side,
when Mr.. Biggs objected to further eyi-
hNhSC hPOl tilla punt NeHN'lNA'1 Ni'"N
the pleas of the defendant were mot
guilty, act of limitation and release"
and that the defendant could not claim
that the injury was an accident under
these pleas.
Mr.. Biggs was citing the law on this
point when court adjourned until $50
o'clock Friday afternoon.
In the superior court Friday after
ta lnfa had ~ irt mo N
case of Butler Ford vs. the Charles Warner
Company. Mr.. Hiles called George 1ohn-
son to the stand. He testified that he did
not see Ford caught between the wagon
and the street car, nor did he hear George
Nandyke call ont to him, just prior to the
accident. The witness took the right side
of the street to prevent crossing the turn
table for fear it might cripple his horses.
The defence here closed.
Mr.. Hiles then offered in evidence
a copy of the city ordinance which re-
stricts vehicles from standing in the street,
claiming that the cah was an obstruction
as shown in the provisions of this orGi-
nance.
Mr. Birgs objected to the ordinance
, going in evidence claiming that the rail
, way company was q corporation and It's
cars had a right to stand on the street The
court allowed the ordinance to go in evil
q dence for what it was worth. Court ad-
j
a In the superior court saturday morning
: argument was concluded by counsel in the
:. damage case of Butler Ford, colDred VS.
the Charles Warner Company. William
). HiIles for the defence cOntendcd that
4 there was no contributary negligence on
a the part of the defendant, and that the
A Charles Warner Company should not be
J, made TO pay smart money, there should
!, be no exemplary damages IN this case.
>. Mr., Biggs, in his closing argument on
. behalf of the plaintiff, cOntended that
Ford was attending to his duties when in
:, jnred BY the defendants wagon, and thef6
Z was contribntory negligence on the part Of
A. the defendant in causing the accident. He
, asked for damages i'll the sum of 5000.
y Chief Justice Robinson announced that
70 he would not charge the jury until Mon
IL day morning, to which time court ad
iourned. The court stated that the trla
IL list would be gone over Monday.
., In the superior court, Monday morning
Chief Justice Robinson charged the Jury il
~ the case of Butler Ford VS. the Charlie
~. Warner Company. The Chief justice
!, carefully reviewed the evidence in tn
IA case and stated that if the defendan
i, failed 10 use ordinary care and caution il
passing the plaintiff, and did iniure hin
,e as alleged, then the verdict should be 10
-, the plaintiff, but if the jury did no
= believe the defendant was guilty Of COT
bo triDutory negligence then the Verde
~ Slblli De Tor tlt letflCe,
II The Wilmington City Railway Compan
~ ~ have right 10 use the streets Of the cit
=. for laying tracks and running cars, an
III had right to keep car No. l6 on the si'
No. ing so that car No 10 should pass it.
- the highways are for public convenience
"a 50 are the tracks Of the city railways. Bl
~ the question arises had Butler Ford Il
M right 10 stand in the street, busting the C;
III and talking 70 lady without paying an
IL attention 10 passing teams. The Jury mu
- decide whether he had this right VIII
ever places himself in public street
~ bound to exercise care and diligence
Ia avoiding accidents. On tie other hand,
~. and injured him through Carelessness thu
n the former is liable for damages
III, The court cited the case of Jones Va. BE
~ and using the language Of Chief JUST
49, COmcgys, stated that any negligence
I'LL, the part Of the plaintiff will prevent /
~ recovering damages, This case brings
the relation of master and mechanic, Al
the tile master is always liable for the neg
the gence of his servant
ned The court also stated that exempla
Mr. damages should not be awarded, except
- cases OF most aggravated character, e
- declined to charged the jury that exc
us pary damages should not be awarded
lles the case, as requested by Mr. llillcs,
yer. the defence. The jury retired at 10
S Of o'clock,
Wit The trial list was agair gone over. Oh
me Justice Robinson announced that the CO.
,tro had established a new RUE in relation
80 divorce cases and would hereafter com
'rS- attorneys to file all affidavit Of service
ohg publication before the commissioner
)nrt appointed 10 take testimony.
aul- FORD CHS : VERDICT.
"a At 1890 o'clock the Jury in the f,
,,'r5 damage case came into court with ycrt
IN ~ of $500 for the plaintiff and was
'ueu charged.
any In the superior court Monday af
noon the application for new tra
tand the ease of Anton Benson vs.. the city
nent argued, Lewis {. Nandegriit appea
,bo the plaintiff. The suit was brought
NV, Benson at the last term of court to
'!!"M cover Nr damages done his property
linst the lower end of the Ninth ward,
set reason OF surface water flowing into
cellar. A Jury rendered & verdict
10 a favor Of Benson for aiOlp The ga
mod yesterday gave the plaintiff the uptui
,isor accepting the reduced sum OF SticS or
-. ming the risk Of getting damages ut {.
- az trial. MIR. lIilles wisely accepted the Z
'IS' promise.
lost Lewis {. Vaudcgrift moved Tor rnl
the snow cause why a mandamus should
issue 10 compel the managers Of the
had Georges Marsh Company to asses
'oors collect taxes sufficient Ia pay the judEn
-. of William Clcaver for lumber furnis
e e 'ti the company Inhn H. Rodney appe
oIu for the defendant and presented An
entity dayit of the managers to the effect
5 ap- they were unable to raise the SUN S
Gent to liquidate the debt Of Mr., Clcu
the The court held that the applicant W
lay error 2 asNlhs lDr u VIII ~ ilailaa