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

sumed his argument. He reviewed at
great legnth the testimony produced by
the plaintiff and said that most of il was
unworthy of belief. lie said that Max
well had been cautioned not to ride the
colt in the parade, but against the
wishes Of his friends he persisted, and
therefore lost his life. He said that it
would not do to say the defence had
been attempting to bribe witnesses and
had been securing the city with detec-
tiycs. Such statements were incorrect.
Mr.. Bradford spoke about the actions
of the mare on the morning of the acci-
dent and said that its conduct was far
from that of an old horse, as claimed by
the plaintiff. On the contrary, the
mare was unbroken, nervous and frac-
tious. The defence had shown by six
different witnesses that the animal had
SHE'D at an electric car under the via
duct at Delaware avenue station tho
morning of the accident.
Mr.. Bradford contended that Maxwell
had full opportunity to avoid the acci-
dent which eliminated in his death, as
he could have turned aside in the same
manner as did Ripple or Vansant. He
contended that Maxwell was the victim
of his own recklessness, and the action
for $4,000 was brought on by the
actions Of the young man, which could
have been avoided. The motorman, he
contended, did all in his power to avert
the accident, and the brakes were ap-
piled in such a manner as 70 stop the
Cur in from 30 to 35 feet after the horse
was struck by the car. The car was
running at rate of speed not exceed
ing seven miles an hour as contended
by the plaintiff.
Mr.. Bradford said in conclusion that
verdict of six cents would be as dis
astrous as $4,000; it would open the
tioodgates to countless similar suits, and
numbers of others on the slightest preteXt
would rush through the opening. He
asked for II just and proper verdict and
at Liz O'Clock concluded his argument.
Mr.. Bird then began the concluding
argument for the plaintiff.
Mr.. Bird argued at some length on
the points Of law in the case and spoke
of the rules of neutrality-suspicious.
He continued that even If the plaintiff
did contribute to certain extent toward
the accident, if the defendant approxi-
mately contributed negligence to the
accident, the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover.
Mr.. Bird began addressing the jury
at 11.35 o'clock. In the course of his
remarks he said the question was, did
the plaintiff contribute to this accident
If the jury has any doubt as to the
plaintiffs right to recover it is based on
the conduct of the horse. Had the
plaintiff a right to know that his horse
would not quietly pass that car from
the knowledge he had of the mares be-
havior9 He said 10 out of the "a
witnesses called by the plaintiff as
to the horse never saw the mare until
the morning of the accident and there
fore were not competent to judge of the
behavior of the animal. He contrasted
the evidence adduced by the plaintiff
with that of the defence, and pointed
out to the jury that they could have no
trouble in determining the trial. lie
| said that 1t was an uncontradicted fact
that in admiralty cases sailors invaria-
bly, swear by their ship, and the natural
Inference was employees would swear
by the railway company.
Mr. Birds summing up was almost
exclusively confined to complete re-
view of the testimony. He examined
the testimony of every witness and
pointed out the strong or weak points
in the chain of evidence. He contended
that the plaintiff had right TO traverse
the thoroughfare, and if the defendant
runs him down he is culpable for the
accident.
Mr. Bird concluded about o'clock,
when court adjourned until 10 o'clock
Wednesday morning.