The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-02-23
CITY IN THE SOUP
IT MUST FORK OUT A BIG SUM FOB
DAMAGES.

That is Provided an Upper Court Does Not
Beyerse the Decision-The Jury Didn't
Do a Thing But Give Mrs. stallings
Over Seven Thousand Dollars for Fall
Ing on the Sidewalk While Buttontng
Her GIove-One Juror Holds Out Thirty
Hours for 500 and Then Goes Himself
$1,000 Observation-Disclosures Precedent
Wichita got another crack in the eye
yesterday and one that is Of far-reach-
ing effect 4 precedent was establish
ed which, if followed. will go much
farther towards bankrupting the city
than the methods OF Tiger Campbell
At AS in the afternoon the jury in
the case Of Mrs. Stallings against the
city returned verdict giving the plain
tiff the handsome sum OF s7,lO0 dam
ages for alleged personal injuries re-
ceived by falling on a sidewalk.
The verdict was a surprise TO every
one including. ii is said. the PLAINTIFF
and her attorneys who, doubtless
would have compromised the case long
ago for one tenth of the sum of the YER
dict.
II this remarkable verdict IS not set
aside by the higher court the city viii
have 10 shell out the cash 10 Mrs.
Stallings. OF course an appeal VIII be
taken but it remains 10 be seen whether
it viii be of any avail There may be
no error TO justify the appellate court
in reversing the lower court and the
only hope for this city will be then THAI
the higher court will set aside the YER
dict as being excessive. This, how
ever, will be a question OF fact and not
a question OF law. The higher court
may. upon receiving the evidence. de-
eide that the verdict was not excessive,
! no matter what the taxpayer may think
of the matter.
The way the thing now looks the city
! is between the devil and the deep sea,
/ with both of them very ferocfous look
! ing. Bill Tiger and his outfit viii take
care not TO allow the city TO get any
! revenue 10 fix the sidewalks and II they
are not fixed there Will be great many
more claimants making demands on
/ the city eXchequer.
| II is thought that the city may attack
| the verdict on its alleged irregularity
! II is said, and doubtless can be proven
| that the verdict was not made up ac-
! cording TO the spirit OF the law. "A
great many or the Jurymen Noltu al
| the time to allow the sum of $4,000
what the plaintiff asked for, while 9th
ers voted for a much less sum, and one
man held out all the time for a verdic'
| of 800. All of them being tired they
| compromised by having each man pu'
| down the amount he considered tht
! plaintiff entitled 70, adding all up anc
| dividing the result by twelve. This wa'
done and 81, 100 was the sum agreed up
on. A few we'll posted lawyers wht
| admit this TO be the custom of arriving
at damage verdicts, say that IL VII
never stand the test OF the higher court.
If it is attacked.
The plaintiff claimed that by falling
through a defective plank in the side
| walk on Second street she sustained
through the negligence of the city, per
manent injuries 10 her spine. The cit!
! claims that she was afflicted long befor
| 1898. when the accident occurred. AM
| also claimed that she was guilty o
| contributory negligence The court he'll
out so and instructed the jury that ]
made no difference whether Mrs. Stan
ings had injuries before the acctden
occurred so long as the fall she sus
tanned increased and aggravated then