The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-01-17
A DOLLAR VERDICT.
Which Judge SandersOn
Refused to Accept.
No Such Thing as Nominal Damages
for a Broken Arm in the State
of California.

The foreman of the jury patted his knees
with the paper containing the verdict. The
two opposing counsel blinked at him and
his llow-iurymen in their obvious efforts
to do little mind-reading on their own
account The plaintiffs guardian wiped
his six-year-Old nose, and the defendant,
whose cart had run over the child aud bro
ken his arm, anxiously scanned the faces of
the twelve men in the box. Presently the
Judge came in from mis- chambers and took
his seat.
The verdict was passed to the clerk, who
handed II up TO Judge SaEders0n. 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 displeased.
Gentlemen Of the jury" said the clerk,
'1isten to your verdict: we find for the
plaintiff and assess the damages against the
defendant a 81.
Then the Judge frowned and there was a
deep shade Of asperlty 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.
| won't accept the verdict. 1t is not rea-
sonabe. You should be brave enough to
find for the defendant if you think he was
not to blame. II on the other hand you
think he was you should be brave enough to
say so and give the plaintiff reasonable dam
ages. 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
mis- services IN attending the boy. The
Judge replied this had nothing to do with
the plaintiffs claim for damages. The jury
should bring in a verdict for one side or the
other, but a dollar damages was nonsense.
The doctors security for his claim lad MOTH
ing to DO with the case.
After half an hours reconsideration Of
the testimony the jury returned into court
with a verdict for $50 damages for the plain
tiff.
The action was entitled Andrew Boyle. a
minor by Catherine Boyle, his general
guardian, versus James Wyatt. The COM
plant asked for specific damages amounting
TO $50 for medical services and $500 gen.
eral damages. The injury was sustained
on May p, 1890, when Andrew, then years
of age, was run over on Valencia street by
WAITS twO-wheeled cart. Mrs. BOYLE
with her child and young woman, had just
stepped of a Valencia cable car, and
Wyatps son. boy 10 years old, was driving
the cart in the same direction. Before they
were aware OF the presence OF the child he
was UtACi lurli NUcEls Lie tlutI W ydLl,
who was sitting by his son. jumped out and,
picking up little Andrew, carried him to the
sidewalk before the mother knew what had
happened. He then carried him in his arms
TO the office of DR.. F. w. Harris, close by,
and told the doctor be would see that he
was paid.
The defense produced witnesses who tes-
tilted that Mrs. Boyle had blamed the young
woman with her fer allowing the child to
get away from them, and also that Wyatt
was not driving fast and that the accident
was unavoidable.
On the witness-stand the doctor stripped
little Andrew and showed the jury where
bis 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 soon after the healing
Of the first two fractures, and that the
mother, either in abusing or chasiizing the
child, was responsible for the second break.
This testimony, however. was only in the
nature Of hearSay and was stricken out