The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1894-02-01
FIFTH EDITION.


~ lis k.0t
Proceedings efCsnrt.
Immediately after court convened
this morning Chief Justice Lore de.
livord his charge to the Jury.
-.- THE courts CHARGE.
Gentlamen:-Thisi Is an action on the
case brought by John MAXWELL, ad min
istrator or Robert y. Maxwell. deceas-
ed. against the Wilmington City Rail.
way Company to recover damages for
the death Of Robert s. Maxwell. caused,
as 1t is alleged, by tho negligence OF
the defendant company. While on the
other hand 1t denies all liabilities and
AYERS, frat, that 1t was in no wise
negligent, but made every effort to
prevent the accident.
Even II there were negligence on tile
part OF the company there was con-
trlbutory negligence on the part Of
the deceased, In that he was riding
spirited. unbroken young mare. aud
that he voluntarily crossed with her
In front OF an approaching car. from
safe position to dangerous one.
Delaware avenue along which the
defendant company's tracks run. Is q
public highway of this city. The
company has rig hit to use the avenue
for the operation OF Its electric rail-
way, In common with travellers, who
may elect to use it on foot or other
wise. The cars can only use part Of
1t, as they move only In fixed lines
over their tracks.
In using this highway all parties arc
bound to exercise reasonable care and
diligence to prevent accidents and
collisions.
1 10 the duty of the company to
provide competent and careful motor
men and servants and to soc that they
use reasonable care In operating tho
care To avoid danger. that they run at
reasonable rates of speed. and that
they slow up or stop, II need DO, whore
danger 10 imminent.
There Is a like duty on the part OF
people using such highway to stop
and II need be turn out of the tracks
In the presence of danger. You will
readily perceive II this were not SO.
that travel in electric cars would be at
the mercy OF every person who saw
fit to place him self on the tracks, ana
rapid and convenient transit OF pas
sengets thsreby would DO at an end.
Both parties therefore were right
fully on Delaware avenue on thas
fateful day. We are therefore con-
fronted with tho crucial question in
this case Did the accident and death
of Robert s. Maxwell result from tho
negligence Of the defendant COM
pany1
II tho defendant company was
guilty OF no negligence. your verdict
should be for the defendant. II you
believe. however, that the deceased
was guilty OF the negligence that was
the proximate cause OF the accident
and death, then he contributed to the
accident. and the plaintiff, his adm in.
istrator, cannot recover.
II however you believe from the
evidence. that the defendant company
was IL & genta and that such negligence
was the proAimate cause OF the 8ool-
dent and death, in that case, although
the deceased might have been guilty
OF some negligence. IL would not DO
contrlbutory negligence. and the
plaintiff would be entitled to reoove RI
Tor 1t Is now we'll settled that the
plaintiff may recover damages Tor an
injury caused by the defendants neg
ligonoe. Notwithstanding the plulet-
iil's own negligence exposed him to
the risk OF Injury, II such injury, was
becoming aware Of the PLANTING
danger, tn use ordinary care for the
purpose OF avoiding Injury to him."
| (Sharman d Redtield ON negligence,
SEQ. 60 and oases cited
This Is now the settled law in this
| State. where thore has been mutual
negligence and the negligence of each
party was tho p,oXIInate cause of tho
injury, no action whatever can bs
sustained
Gentlemen, this whole question OF
negligence IL for your determination
| under the law, as the court has laii it
| down. You are TO say whether there
WINS negligence on either or both
sides and what was the effect
thereof In causing the death OF the
deceased
In determining this question OF
negligence. You are to take Into con-
sIderation the day place. the actors,
| their conduct, surroundings, and all
the circumstances connected with the
sad tragedy. and after careful and
thorough review, to say whore the
| blame. ii any, lay.
| Should your verdict be for the
! plaintif, the msasure OF damages Ia
such sum as the deceaseu would
| probably have earned ia his hue mess
during life; taking into consideration
! The age of the deceased, his ability.
! dis pusltiun TO labor aud habits OF
| living and expenditure.
lr you find for the defendant, your
verdict Should simply 10 for the de-
PENDANT
The Chief Justice concluded at 1920
O'Clock and the jury retired.
Low Bird and Andrew l.. San5orn.
representing the Welllnan Iron and
Steal Company OF Chester, filed aifl-
davts Of defense In the foreign at
taOhncnts of Ellen II. Wister and Co.
and the West Foundry Go. motion
which Messrs, Rumford and Emmons
made for judgments against the ali,
daylts was argued by Messrs. Emmons
and Sanborn aftnr which the court
withheld its decision. About $4,000 ID
involved.
Thomas Davis made apple itlon for
rule to show cause why lne judg-
ments entered against Mrs. Richard
son in the oase OF the state vs.. OK. Tax
Collector Jas. d. Richardson, OF. al,
should not be stricken from tbs
record.
Col. benjamin Nelds and Frank
Walker filed petition. representing
Alfred S. Warner and Samuel Al Knox
thorl2lng the sale of fifty shares oil
Wilmington City Electric Company
stock worth s. coo owned by the
defendant and transferred to his wife.
John Ii. Rodney had the rule to set
nside tha sale by the sheriff of the
Troop Armory continued until the
next term.
lie was also granted rule for the
writ OF possession.
CITY solicitor George Elliott in
tile certiorai case OF Samuel ID. Forbes
vs.. the Mayor and Council llled causes
OF dlmuniton, II. IL. Ward repre-
scented the plalntiH.
IS
To Put on Auoil,er Train.
Tho large mum hers OF prisoners sent
over to New Castle lateiy and paraded
through tine streets is tine cause for
| L.. Manila af tLnL uIIr, 10 n NJ