The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-01-30
THE PULLMAN co. LIABLE.
IT MUST PROTECT IT'S PASSENGERS
FROM LOSSES by THEFT.

Gets "A New Trial, hut Male Hen
Judgment Against Mr.. william
Kehoe TO stand-Other Decisions
OF Interest Here.
The supreme court has just handed down
several decisions in cases taken up from
the Savannah courts. some Of which con-
tain many points Of interest.
Notably among these was the case of
Miss Elise G. Martin Of South Carolina
against the Pullman Palace Car Company.
While travelling in Pullman car between
Chattanooga and Macon in March, 1892.
she lost pocket book from her hand
sachel, which was In her berth. contain
ing S35 in money and between $500 and 500
worth Of jewelry. She brought suit against
the company in the city court here. as It
has an agency in this city. and alleged
carelessness and neglect on the part of
the company In that her property was
not given sufficient protection while she
was asleep. In December, 1888 she was
given a verdict for s635. In the decision in
this case. sustaining the lower court in its
refusal 70 grant new trial. the supreme
court says:
Without reference to the law regUlat-
ing the liability Of a sleeping car company
for the loss Of property by a passenger,
oocasioned by the negligence Of its en-
ployes, it is clear that. in a case where
the jury could reasonably infer from the
evidence that the property lost by a pas
senger consisted Of sum Of money and
such articles as she might for her personal
convenience and adornment have appro-
priately carried with her in the car, and
that the same was stolen by an employe
Of the company while the passenger was
under his protection. the company is
liable.
The verdict is supported by the evil
dence, and the court did not abuse its dis
erection in refusing a new trial"
The plaintiff was assessed for the costs
Of certain matter in the brief of evidence,
which the supreme court did not consider
necessary. This however, amounted to
only about SL50.
Judge William d. Harden appeared for
the plaintiff and Hon. Pope Barrow for
the defendant. The case is an interest
ing one, in that it is the first Of its kind
that has been decided by the supreme
court in this state. The ruling in effect
is that sleeping car companies are re-
quired to exercise all necessary precau-
tions and to keep a watch through their
agents to prevent the loss of any prop
erty belonging to their passengers. Mr.
Barrow carried the case TO the supreme
court three separate times, the first being
on a demurrer, which was overruled by
the city court; the second on a motion
TO grant a non-suit which was refused
ND he Ice inn an ffas npff ~ I,a
case. The court was sustained in each of
its rulings.
The cases Of MAZE Henderson and John
Cunneen, charged with keeping policy
lotteries, were also passed upon. Judg-
ment in the case of MAZE Henderson was
affirmed, while in the case Of Cunneen
it was reversed. Henderson's plea was
that he was not the owner of the lot
terry he was charged with running but
was merely an employe of the proprietor.
The supreme court held, however, that
the section of the code with reference
to lotteries applied TO those who worked
in them well as to the owners and
proprietors. Henderson's sentence is that
prescribed in the anti-lottery law, $500
and costs or six months in jail. Gun
mems plea was similar to that made
by Henderson, but in his case the SUI
preme court held that the lower court
was in error in not allowing the con-
tnuauce asked for on the ground that a
witness whose testimony was vitality nee
essary to the accused was not on hand.
Cunneen. therefore. gets Il new trial, but
with regard to the issues in the case
with the exception of that in regard
to the absent witness and the refusal
of the court to grant a continuance the
decision states they have already been
ruled upon in the case of Henderson.
Judgment was affirmed in the case of
Andrew Hanley against Scott and Haw-
ley, William Kehoe garnishee, which was
tried in the city court and in which
verdict against the garnishee for 81, 1870. 70
was rendered. Mr.. Hanley secured
a Judgment in the city court against
Scott and Hawley for 81 .3l906 for supplies
furnished. Scott and Hawley, who built
Mr. KehOe's house. claimed that Mr.. Ke-
hoe had not paid them all that was due.
Mr. Kehoe claimed that he did not owe
them but SHOP, that they had agreed
to have the house completed Nov. /, 1892,
that II was not completed until some
time in the following spring, and on
this account he claimed a demurrage of
SO a day for noncompliance with the
contract. this reducing the amount to
S17O2. Against this Scott and Hawley al
legged that somc of the material used was
to be delivered by Mr.. Kehoe and that
some of it was not forthcoming until
after the time when the house was to
be turned over. The verdict in favor
of Scott and Hawley and Mr. Hanley,
who had a judgment against them, was
for 23S0.75 and for $50 for an amount
retained on account of a leak over the
front roof. After ruling on some tech
meal points in the case. the decision says:
THE charge requested was substantially
covered in the general charge given to
the jury; the evidence warranted the
verdict and there was no error in refusing
a new trial"
In this case Mai. P. W. Meldrim appear
ed for the plaintiffs and Messrs. O'Conner
and O'Byrne for the defendants.
The suit of r. ID. LaRoche against
Jacob Cohen was also taken up from the
city court, where a judgment for $500 the
full amount asked, was rendered in the
plaintiffs favor The plaintiff bought or
secured some stock and bonds of the old
Savannah Times for the defendant to the
amount of 5000 and alleged that he was
to be paid $500 as consideration for his
services. He stated that the defendant
/ refused to pay the amount as agreed upon
and was given a judgment for it. The SUI
preme court decision affirming the refusal
/ of the lower court to grant a new trial
F simply states that the verdict was an
equitable one and was justified BY the evil
dence Messrs. McAlpin and LaRoche ap-