Delaware gazette and state journal., 1895-12-12
SupERIoR ooURr.
Dansel Gets s yer,iiut-Ihe Case of Martin
vs.. the Is. s. r. Railroad Go.


both sides Judge Cullen charged the
jury, which after deliberating 40 min
utes returned with a verdict for the de-
fendant.
As soon as the jury in the above case
had retired another jury was drawn to
try the damage suit of William G.
Martin vs.. the Baltimore a. Philadel-
phia Railroad 90. William S. EIilles
and Philip q. Churchman represented
the plaintiff and Levi q. Bird and
Andrew f. Sanborn the defendant com
pany. After the jury had been finally
agreed upon Mr.. Churchman read tho
allegation and presented the case to the
iurymen.
Mr.. Martin, the plaintiff, alleges
that on the night of April 10th, 1893.
Royal Blue Line train on the Phila-
dclphia division of the Baltimore &
Ohio railroad ran into and demolished
u carriage belonging to him. The
vehicle, the allegation states, was rem
dered useless, the horse, which was a
valuable animal, was injured, and the
harness was damaged. He claims 81, 900
damages.
Mr.. Churchman was still addressing
the jury at 5 O'clock, when court ad-
journed until 10 o'clock Thursday
morning.
The taking of testimony was resumed
when court convened Thursday morn
ing and continued until the noon re-
cess.
The taking of testimony was CON
tinued Thursday afternoon.
James L. Riley, watchman at the
Concord crossing from 1883 to April
1893, testified that there was "a hour
turn, arranged between the watchmen,
SO that man could take Sunday off.
Riley was off at the tine of the acci-
dent Charles Gamble was the other
watchman. Riley explained the duties
of watchman.
Miss Faith Beattie, who was driving
on the Concord turnpike on the fatal
night, said she heard no bell.
Miss Eliza Beattie, who was in the
same carriage, corroborated her sisters
testimony.
William Evans, who was walking
down the turnpike that night, testified
that the carriages passed him. He
said they were going on little Jag. y,
He never saw the train till he heard
crash; he heard neither bell nor
whistle.
In rossIexamination the witness
said that the first time he knew any
thing about the case being in court
was when he came to the Court House
and heard the evidence. That was
Thuriday, and he hadn't spoken to
lawyer about his knowledge of the acci-
dent until that time.
After the accident, he said, he
stopped at the crossing and talked
with the watchman. Mr.. Bird asked
Mr.. Gamble to stand up. At first
the witness said that Gamble was not
there that night, but upon closer in
spection he said he saw him there.
j. Atwood Weldin was asked whether
he did not think the Concord crossing
dangerous. Mr.. Bird objected. He
held that it was expert testimony that
the conditions at the crossing could
be proved, but the jury must decide
whether it is dangerous. Mr.. Bird
stated that in the Parvis case in which
Judge Lore was one of the counsel,
question whether a crossing was dan
gerous was not allowed, but Judge
Lore's recollection was that the court
allowed that question to go in. Mr..
Bird said the tendency now was to
leave out expert testimony wherever
possible. The court did not under
stand the point in contention as on the
ground of expert testimony.
The court decided to allow the ques-
tion. Chief Juatice Lore said it would
be impossible for witnesses to give the
exact state Of the conditions. They
could however, give their opinions
Mr.. Bird noted an exception to the
ruling.
Adjournment until 10 o'clock Friday
morning.
When court convened Friday DIR. +.
Harvey Day was called and asked
to tell the condition of the road and
surroundings from the top of the hill
TO tho railroad, as they existed at the
time Of the accident Mr.. Bird oh
iected on the ground that others had
testified on that point. DR.. Day did
not answer, but he said he considered
the crossing an unusually dangerous
one
tx Marshall Henry Q. Mahaffy also
considered the crossing unusually dan
gerous.
james G. McComb was put on the
stand to show the value OF the horse,
after the accident, but he was not
allowed to testify.
Joseph l.. Ocheltree said he con-
sidered the crossing dangerous, but
thought that an approaching locomo-
tive could be seen for about 100 feet |
back up the road.
Thomas A. Beatty also thought the |
crossing was a dangerous one. Robert |
Beatty was of the same opinion.
The plaintiff here rested
Mr.. Bird for the defence addressed |
the jury, stating that he would show |
that great care had been taken by the |
watchman to prevent the accident. He |
held that the company was in no wise |
responsible for the unfortunate occur
renee, as all precautions had been
taken.
Charles S. Gamble was called for the
defence. He was the watchman at the
crossing on the night when the acci-
dent happened. He stated that he
came out when freight went by. |
ahead of the express, and he remained
out, with his lantern, until the ex-
press arrived. Before the latter train
reached the crossing he heard the car
riages coming down the hill and called
to the occupants to stop and waved
his lantern. They did not heed him,
he alleged, but continued on and he
got in front OF them, and in crossing
they almost ran into him. He saved
his own life by jumping to one side.
John Saville, the toll gate keeper
on the Concord turnpike near the rail
road crossing, stated that he saw
Waterman Gamble out waving his ian
tern and shouting and trying TO prevent
the people in the carriages from cross
ing.
J. jackson Peirce was called to tes-
tify to the condition of things at the
N,.A |
there at night. He said there was no
rhstrnntint, nt ull 900 fnnt hnnk from, [