The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1894-01-31
WAS MAxwELL NEGLIGENT,
Defendants Cinim He Was and Argue
to That Eject.

Defendants Cinim He Was and Argue
To That Eject.
After the opening OF court yester-
day afternoon. Mr.. Biggs continued
his argument 70 the jury. 10 would
have to be proved, he went on to say,
that Robert s. MAXWELL acted on that
day with due care and caution. IL he
did not act with due care and caution
he was guilty oil oontTibutory neRli.
gence, and there should be q verdict
In favor OF the defendant.
In conclusion. Mr.. Biggs said that II
was very unfortunate occurrence, Il
was sad accident, IL was an awful
bereavementit was great sorrow. but
II was likewise solemn matter for
the railway company. Solemn be-
cause Il they must pay damages in a
case like the one being tried they
might ns we'll go out OF business. II
was not worth his while to ask the
jury to make O verdict according to
the faots. for that was Just what they
would do. But II their verdict was
that the defendant must pay damages
In this and like instances they would
take the life out OF the greatest
enterprise that was ever started In this
city.
What are the people going to do
without railways? What is going to
become OF the travelling publlc2 What
is going to become OF tho travelling
public II railways are going to bs ham.
pered? Do them justice on the law
and the facts. Let them live. which
they cannot do II you give damages
In u case like this. In closing no said
that the jury could not say that the
defendant company had been guilty
OF negligence. He sympathiZed with
the bereaved family, but the Jury
could not say he had not been guilty
OF contributory negligence.
MIR. Bradford then spoke first about
negligence as had been gone over be.
fore. In these latter days, he said. 1t
seemed that there were some courts
that have been working In on the we'll
established doctrine of contributory
negligence. Mr.. Bradford had under.
stood the learned counsel for the
plaintin to urge that though the plain.
till may have been guilty of negii-
gence, notwithstanding this, II tho de.
PENDANT had not used the proper care
the plaintiff was entitled to recover
damage.
MIR. Bradford said he would willing.
~ have left the defence in the hands
OF the jury. but he felt he would be
untrue to his client II he did not. TO
tho btSI VI lHb hblltyt pttb5nb tub
casa. Robert S. Maxwell was dead
and no verdict would do him good. 1t
Is his administrator that brings the
suit and he would ask the Jury to try
the case as II 1t WIS between individ.
usls. II was true that the defendant
Is a corporation and the plaintiff a
private citizen, but the jury had not
been selected to try the case OH sym
patty, 10 matter how noble a senti-
ment that might be. Neither were
thoy expected to try the cage by their
emotion.
lie was not opposed to holding cor.
norations responsible for their acts,
but he wanted them treated Justly
During bis argument Mr.. Bradford
claimed that Robert S. Maxwell was
a reckless man Tho fact was testi.
lied to that he had ridden the mare
without bride. Carrying before him
a 2-S ear.old child was only another
proof OF his recklessness: and Robert
). Maxwell Ia In hie grave to-day. Mr.
Bradford said, ne victim of his own
caroleGsness, IL Robert S. Maxwell
rode the colt from a safe place to un-
sale place, that was an end to this
case.
Court adjourned at 5 o'clock to NEE {
at 10 this morning.