Evening journal., 1896-03-02
A FIGHT FOR DAMAGES
Mrs. Seward Stepped Into a
Trench and Was Hurt.
CITY DIsULAIMs ALL LIABILITY

voted TO Argument On n Statute.
Trial OF the damage suit Of william r
aud Mary A. Seward vs the Mayor and
Council Of Wilmington was begun In the
Superior Court tnis morning before
JUDGES Cullen snd Marvel. Levi . Bird
and Andrew K Sal BORN represented the
plaintiff. City solicitor Hsrman and
Horace g. Knowles conducted a vigorous
defense.
When it came to tho drawing Of the
jury from the special panel the plaintiff
Abram Armour and Crawford
Rankin aud the defendant challenged J.
Frank Reybold, John T. CheAlrs aud
Charles Derrickson.
The Jury drawn was as follows:
Wilbur f. Wilson. John Shaw, John
p Cochran, William Vickery, w. Il
Reece, Harris p. Mcdowell John
Lockermsu, James Craig, Benjamin r.
David, James E Cats aud William
Grler.
Andrew Il sanborn made the openlug
for the plaintiff. He said that In some
counts OF the declaration II was alleged
that the city had been negligent In the
care Of the streets, while In another II
was alleged that the city, by itself or It's
agents, did the work across the side
walks.
He then recited the story OF the
injuries sustained by Mrs. Seward on
the evening OF May is 1893 The
plaintiffs man and wife, we're walking
on West Fifth street, west
OF Harrlson Mrs. Seward stepped
into trench Of dangerous char
acter which had been dug across the
sidewalk her fall was 20 heavy that
she sustained permanent injuries. Since
then she suffered pain continually, the
injuries being internal. The plaintiffs
would shsw that the accident was due 70
the negligence OF the city In not keeping
its pavements In proper repair
When he had concluded he offered IN
evidence deeds TO the street bed from
building liue to building line, which
showed that the title TO the pavement
was vested In the city
Civil Engineer William B Crswell
presented plot which he had pi iepared
It showed all the features Of the square
between Harrison and Franklin streets.
Mr. Csrswell said that a week after the
accident, he measured the trench cross
ing the sidewalk He found It two feet
wide at the top and two inches dsepat
the curb At the deepest point IL was
eight inches deep. The deepest point
was seven feet, nine inches from the
curb.
The plot WAS put In evidences, the
defense Offering no objection after cross
examining Mr., Carswell. as to the cor
rectness Of the measurements.
Defense Scores q Point.
Mr.. Bird called Francis McMonagle. OF
Philadelphia, whose wife owns the lot
10 drain which the trench was cut. Mr.
McMonagle stated .thst his wife never
had agents here TO look after the prop
erty.
Mr. Bird asked him II he or his wife
had given any orders to have the trench
dug.
The defense objected on the ground
that the husband could not speak for bis
wife, as he was not her agent The OBJ
lection was sustained and was followed
by another which compelled Mr. Bird to
withdraw the witness. He said that the
wife was sick in Philadelphia, or he
would have had her here,
Mrs. Mary A. Seward. the injured
woman, took the stand. She said that it
was absut oclosk In the evening when
she stepped Into the trench. She lived
at No 42l East Sixth street and was on
her way to No. 1917 West Fifth street to
6t dress.
Mr.. Bird asked her to describe the
trench.
Mr.. Harmsn objected unless the other
eide could show that IL WAS dug by the
city, their contention being that the
city was not liable for the trench being
there or for damages which might re
suit thersfrom. This opened the ques-
tlon OF the constitutionRlity OF the
statute, which Mr. Bird was not
ready to meet on thst witness, but
said he wanted the question
disposed Of early In the case
He told her to leave the stand and
then called Charles X. Ballard. This
witness testified that. in the Spring Of
1898 he lived. at No. sol franklin street
He had recollections OF the trench Ia
question. It WAS clear across the side
walk, but he did not know that the oity
dug It.
The statute regarding the constltu-
tionality Of which there Is a contention,
was then offered IN evidence and Mr.
Harman opened argument FOR the city
He read his propositions and cited
authorities. going TO show that the city
could not be held liable unless II could
be proved that the city dug the trench.
The statute upon which the city, bases
It's claim Of non liability is as follows:
"The owner OF any premises fronting
upon any footways, shall bs solely
responsible for any damage that may
result to persons or property by reason
OF any hole, excavation or obstruction In
or upon such footways. or from any
defective condition Of fuch footways,
provided, however. that such hole, exos
walton or obstruction or other defective
condition OF the footWays aforesaid ID
not caused by the city Or any OF its au-
thorizsd agents.
Argument was still on when court
took recess until 230 o'clock Their,
will be no court Tomorrow % Judge
Cullen's son-in-laW. II. d. George, will
be buried on that day. Jurors anC
witnesses will be discharged unti
Wednesday morning.
Real Estate Transfers Filed.
Transfers OF property on Washington
stroet between Sixth aud Seventh, and
on Sixth bstween Shipley and Orange
straafo from NVflharForoa N Ohandlar