Evening journal., 1894-01-30

hours for argument, and ex-Attorney-
General John Biggs put In the prayers Of
the defense. They were as follows
"First-That the burden Of proof rests
upon the plaintiff to show to the salts
faction of the Jury that the defendant
was negligent in the operation of car No.
Al and that. by reason of such negli-
gence, the plaintiffs intestate came to
his death
"Second-That II the jury should be-
lieve. from the evidence in the case, that
the defendant was negligent In the
operation of car No. al. Whether In re
spect to speed decoration, appliances or
otherwise, plaintiff cannot recover II his
intestRte approximately contributed by
his own negligence, carelessness or reck-
lessness.
"Thir THAT while the defendant had
not exclusive right to the use Of that
portion of Delaware avenue embraced
within It's tracks, yet 1t was the duty Of
the plaintiffs intestate, so far as he
could, to keep off, and away from the
track upon which car No. Al was NOV
ing; and If the jury should believe that
the plaintiffs intestate failed TO leave
the track when within his power, he
was guilty of contributoIy negligence,
and plaintiff is debarred from recovery
from the defendant.
Four-That IL the jury shall believe
from the evidence In the case. that the
plaintiffs intestate crossed over TO the
northerly side Of Delaware avenue, at or
about lthe northeast corner Of Delaware
avenue and Clayton street, in order to try
or test the colt ridden by him TO car No. fl, +,
he was guilty Of such contributory neg
ligence as would bar recovery from the
defendant.
"Five-That II the jury shall believe
from the evidence in the case that the
plaintiffs intestate knew or had reason
to believe that his colt was nervous,
high strung or not properly broken, IL
was incumbent upon him TO observe due
care to avoid riding In such place or
places as would excite such a nervous
or high-strung colt. And II he failed to
do so and thereby met with the accident
he was guilty Of such cOntributory
negligence as would bar any recovery
from the defendant.
"Six-That II the jury shall believe
that the colt ridden became frightened
at the electric car or cars standing In
front OF the B & o. station few minute s
before the accident in question, it was
incumbent upon him TO observe all
proper care in approaching car No Al, and
any failure on his part TO do so Is such
contributory negligence as would bar
any recovery from the defendant
He followed this up with citations OF
law in support OF the prayer.
He closed at II o'clock
Cooper for the Plaintiff.
Peter L. Cooper, Jr., then opened
argument for the plaintiff before the
jury. He began by congrstulRting the
jury upon the case being so near its
end. he said, in rart.
II shall address myself only TO you.
shall try TO convince your reason that
every point urged by the defense is
fallacious and without foundation In
fact or in law. This case Is to determine
what rights the public have
in the streets Of the city Of
Wilmington, where the defendant
operates its cars. Why all these people
here from day to day2 The public
recognizes that they are on triRl-thRt
their rights are being tried as well as
the rights Of Robert S Maxwell's ad.
ministrator. You are TO decide
whether we are to be run down
in the streets by this defendant, which
operates its cars by the most dangerous
agency known to man. The defendant
does not say that there was no negligence
on its part, but IL says you contributed
10 IL and we are not responsible Whether
Maxwells horse was broken or unbroken,
he had as much right as the company to
ride on that avenue. Ii was the duty
of the motorman to have his car under
control, so that he could have stopped
II in case of emergency. We believe
that we have proved that car No. Al was
moving at more than twenty miles an
hour.
1.-The company says it had six motor
men standing like sentinels on duty
watching the conduct of the horses on
the day of the parade, which we all
know is a busy day. That kind of evi
dence won't 60. Mrs. Quinn, witness
for the defense, said she did
not see the horse misbehaving
when coming under the b. & o. bridge
She said the horse did not frighten until
il was near Clayton street and car No
Al was then between Rodney and Clayton
street. 1t was young horse but vel
under control You know what driving
horse to a milk wagon means. Thirty
three witnesses told you that the colt
was not fIactious
If you take out the testimony Of Mr.
Donahoe, who does the company's haul
ing; Mr. Davis, who does its paving
and the dozen or more motormen who
run the cars, the defense has not more
than half a dozen witnesses left. l dom
believe there is a juror who has hearC
the evidence who does not believe thal
that horse was remarkably quiet for 4
young horse.
"rhe car was in imperfect condition
that day or running at a terrible anc
enormous rate Of speed The company
develops mule drivers into electricians
and life insurance agents into skilled
mechanics. Every man had the sam'
tale Mr.. Life Insurance Agent, vii
sand help stop a carr No
If the track is dry. Mr.. Mule Driver
will sand assist in stopping a carr No
on dry track. why didn't the defens'
put the superintendent on the stand Il
time. They didn't dare do it. The,
preferred to call mule drivers and lif
insurance agents in place Of the skille'
electricians.
| ttrl., -. -. ~,f,,at.. foaf ~