Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-02-01

"Thirty or 40 yards" was the witness
reply.
William Keimer and Joseph O'Brien
and G. +. Grub said that car running
at the rate Of seven miles IN hour could
be stopped within distance OF 35 feet.
The defence here rested.
Mr.. Bird then called Richard Harrl-
son TO the stand. He is locomotive
engineer on the Delaware railroad. He
has had an experience of 10 years. He
was asked if the application of sand on
a dry track would aid him in stopping
locomotive.
Mr.. Bradford objected on the ground
that the plaintiff had already gone into
this line of evidence and that here the
matter should rest.
The Chief Justice said he disliked to
differ with the rest of the court, but he
thought the evidence was utterly in
admissible. If the court permitted
its introduction they would not know
where to draw the line.
The majority of the court decided to
admit the testimony.
Ihe witness testified that the applica-
tion of sand to dry track would aid
in stopping a car. e...
William II. Beckley testified that he
ran the fastest car on the p, w. & b.
railroad at the time he was badly lamed
in an accident at Charlestown, Md. He
said that sand would aid in stopping a
car on dry track.
Court adjourned until $50 o'clock.
The evidence in the Maxwell damage
case was finished in the superior court
in the afternoon. William Beckley
was recalled and testified that he eX-
amined the brake of an electric car
during the noon recess and found that
il hugged the wheels of a trolley car the
same as the brake on locomotive. The
the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Balti-
more Railroad Company.
Joseph u. Wilkins testified that he
was secretary of the coroner's jury
which Investigated the death of Max
well and has acted as secretary of a
number of juries. lie took the notes of
the inquest and afterwards transcribed
them. He identified the notes handed
him by Mr.. Bird and stated that the
evidence was reduced to writing at the
trial.
The witness rebutted the evidence OF
witness going to show that Vansant and
Nipple had made certain statements at
the inquest which were not reported
and which Messrs. Nipple and Vansant
denied.
J. l.. Vansant was recalled and stated
that his testimony at the inquest covered
period of one-half hour.
B. f. johnson, a carpenter, was called
to the stand.
Mr.. Bird asked the witness whether
or not he had noted the rate of speed on
the Rising Sun branch.
Mr.. Bradford objected to the testi-
mony on the ground that it was imma-
terial, improper and out Of order.
Mr.. Bird said that several witnesses
had testified that no cars were run at a
higher rate of speed than 10 or 10 miles
an hour. He wanted to cOntrovert this
testimony. He said that 0'Brien had
stated that he saw Maxwell's horse
frighten at u trolley car on the Rising
Sun line and Mr.. Bird wanted to prove
that O'Brien himself had run cars at a
reckless rate of speed.
The court ruled out the evidence and
Mr.. Bird noted an exception.
Thomas Hetherington was called to
contradict the testimony of John
Lowther, who said he had heard Max
well say he was going to ride the mare
in the parade, kill it or it would kill him.
Mrs. Maxwell took the stand. She
testified that her son was home at II
o'clock on the day of the accident. He
left the house at 11.50 o'clock to ride in
the parade. The testimony was for the
purpose of contradicting evidence pro.
duced by the defence, going to show
that Maxwell was somewhere else at
that hour.
The plaintiff here rested.
w. S. Heger, general manager of the
Wilmington City Railway Company,
was called to testify as to the uses Of
electricity, but the court ruled the evil
dence out.
The defence then rested.
Mr.. Sanborn began arguing to the
court on points of law until interrupted
by court adjourning at 5.15 o'clock until
10 o'clock Tuesday morning.
The argument in the Maxwell case
commenced Tuesday. Court limited
each side to five hours. Mr.. Sanborn
finished arguing to the court on points
of law Monday evening.
On Tuesday Mr.. Biggs submitted the
prayers on the part Of the defence, con-
tending that the burden of proof lay
with the plaintiff to prove the negli-
gence of the motorman. If the jury
believe the plaintiff was negligent in
any manner he could not recover if the
plaintiff approximately contributed by
recklessness or negligence to the acci-
dent. That, while the defence did not
possess an exclusive right it covers the
duty of plaintiffs TO prove that he was
not guilty of negligence in not getting
out of tile way of the car If the
plaintiff had knowledge of the fractious-
ness of the mare he should not have
ridden it on that day. If he was pos
sesscd of this knowledge he was guilty
of contributory negligence. Mr.. Biggs
finished at II o'clock.
Mr.. Cooper then addressed the jury
in behalf of the plaintiff. He spoke of
the rights of citizens on the public
streets and the great interest mani
tested in this particular case by every
one. Assuming that the horse was
fractions, which the plaintiff does not
admit, the cars of the company should
be under full control and proceeding at
snail's pace. The cars are operated
by the most dangerous clement known
to science, and extraordinary precau-
ton should be exercised Mr.. Cooper
contended, in operating railway line.
Mr.. Cooper dwelt at great length
upon the famous horse which has cut
such prominent figure in this case and
contended that the mare was quiet and
gentle, and not fractious as claimed by
the defence. He said the plaintiff did
not hold that it was an old horse, but a