Evening journal., 1896-03-19

Her Behalf-Argument Limited to Two
Hoars ON Each slde-sanborn and Har-
man Present Prayers for Their Rospec-
tive Sides,
Doctor after doctor was called by Mr..
Bird In the Superior Court yesterday
afternoon to prove that Mrs. Seward
could have received the kidney and blad
der trouble with which she Is suffering
by falling into the trench on West Fifth
street, for which injuries she Is suing
the city for what she can get Those
who took the stand we're Drs. William p
Bullock, p. w. Tomllnson, Willard
Springer. j Paul Lukens. August Neg
endank, William O Pierce, j. Harmer
Rile, J. T. V Blocksom aud w. g. Win
ner Their testimony, as q whole, was
to the effect that II was possible that
such injuries might result from such a
fall.
James Brown was recalled and testified
that the present condition Of the trench
Is much better than IL was In 1898. Plain
til then closed.
After limiting each side to two hours
argument court dropped the case until
this morning.
Austin Harrington WAS appointed
commissioner 20 take testimony IN the
divorce case Of NlcksrHon vs. Nlckerson
Lewis Q. Vandegrift represents the
complainant and Il. R Cochran, Jr., the
respondent.
Settlement OF the case OF Frank Il
Griswold VS. the p. w & b. Railroad
Company, set for trial on Tuesday. was
reported by John Biggs The Uncle
Toms Cabin" Company was playing at
Middletown and the railroad company
refused to transport one Of the cars any
farther because it was several inches
wider than the standard cars. For nix
weeks the company WAS tied mp there In
tie old parlor car In which Abraham
Lincoln frat went TO Washington. The
terms Of the settlement are not made
public
This morning the court refused to
permit the jury In the Seward case to
90 out and view the scene Of the accident,
on the ground that the condition OF the
trench to day was not what 1t WAS In
1898.
Mr. Sanborn then proceeded to put In
the plaintiff prayers to the court. They
were as follows:
THAT municipal corporation,
charged by the Legislature with the
maintenance Of the public streets, high
ways and sidewalks IN II in a safe and
proper condition for pulic use, Is bound
to perform this duty with diligence and
without negligence.
2-Municlpal corporations owe a duty
Of active vigilance to the public In re-
spscu TO the condition Of sidewalks and
/ streets under their control They are
bound to discover defects therein within
q reasonable time, although caused by
| tha negligent acts Of others.
3-That the defendant, having nndei
It's charter the sole and exclusive juris
dIctlon over and control Of all the side
walks and streets within the limits OF
the city Of Wilmington, has resting upon
| II the primary duty of keeping it's said
sidewalks and streets Ia reasonably safe
condition for public use. and that II the
Jury believes, from the evidence, that Mary
A Seward, the plaintiff, without con-
tributory negligence on her part. was
injured by reason OF the negligence OF
the defendant In suffering and permitting 2
trench, hole, excavation, or other
dangerous defect 10 be aud remain In OF
about the sidewalk OF Fifth street, at OF
near to Harrison street. In said city after
II had actual or constructive notice OF
the same, and a reasonable Tins TO repair
It. the verdict must be for the plaintiffs.
4-Tbat II the jury believe from the
evidence that there was a trench or
excavation In or across the sidewalk OF
Fifth street near to Harrison street. In
the city OF Wilmington. which was
dangerous to persons walking along the
same In the nighttime and that said
trench or excavation was dug out or
caused to bs dag out by the said
defendant or any Of It's authorized
agents aud negligently and carelessy
suffered and permitted BY the said
defendant to be and remain In
dangerous aud unsafs condition FOR
public travel and that Mary A Seward,
the plaintiff, while in the exercise OF due
care on her part. stepped or fell into or
over said trench or excavation and was
thereby Injured, the verdict must be for
the plsintih.
5.-That due care IN the discharge OF
its duty to keep It's sidewalks within the
city limits Ia proper repair and order, aud
IN reasonably safe condition for public
use must be exercised by the defendant
as well IN remote parts Of the city,
as In mora thickly settled parts. Due
care Ia every case Is the measure Of the
defendants responsibility.
6-That II the jury fnds for the plain
tiTs 1t be entitled to recover such dam
ages ss the Jury believes the said Mary
A. Seward has sustained by reason Of the
accident Flrst-For the pain aud suf
fering OF the said Mary A. Seward aud
such other personal injuries received by
her whether temporary or permanent, as
the evidence in, the case may disclose
Secoud-For such pecunlAry loss and
damage as the jury believes from the
evidence the said Mary A. Seward has
sustained or will sustain by reason Of the
accident.
THAT II the jury believes from the
evidence that the injury to Mary A
Seward was ocsssloned by the negligence
Of the defendant, without contriSutary
negligence on her part and that the said
injury fuperlnducsd accelerated or con-
tributsd to the production OF urinary
troubles or affections of the bladder, OF
kidneys or any other disease, the de
fendant is responsible therefore and the
verdict must be for the plaintiffs.
City Solicitor HRrman then put In th'
prayers for the city and cited authorities
/ In eunnort Of the prOpOsitiOng They