The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-04-02
-. X smith yesterday secured q


- Jure. The case went TO the Jury
3 - O'clock 3. H., and the verdict was
serrnM at AZ.
!. statsd yesterday, the opening speech
/ 8. - srosecntion wac made Wednesday
e-sax 5g Col. K II. Lindsay. The case
I. - defense WAS presented yesterday
8 asa. John II. Humphries. and Will r..
s<.rafsy who made strong arguments
I ,sszr o. their client. the street rail-
- company. They emphasized es-
'.s,.1ly the evidence showing that Smith
= Aid 20 look out for the approach
ear along the track which he wax
-, "a croxs, and that IL he alighted
- he cas- -bourd car while IT was In
.s.sssr ne I'D so az his own risk. As
.s.ssnx 10 saow Smiths lack OF caution,
- rgxsex e tho evidence of his being
s.szIezted. The array of authorities
-srsaalsd By Judge HUMPHREYS In MS ar
$500 was formidable. and in several
1890 the cases cited were closely
eafsfsI TO that on trial
al Lindsay closed for the prosecution.
a Judge Benson instructed the jury az
tl;sxx In addition to cautioning them
a. tbey must exclude from their con-
sxurasiou all else save the evidence In
q czke:
~ rou believe from the evidence In
a. sase thar the alighting of plaintiff
an he east-bound car was practically
~ Il the evidence in question, then you
~ conssder the acts Of plaintiff immedI-
,isiy preceding such slighting as well an
- aefs OF the persons 81 charge OF said
t>rL-ocund car. but If plaintiff had safe
i s3shtsd and eaid east bound car had
-f<fs -frss, -
.aassd plaintiff to have seen and avoid
4 said gsst-bound car then you will not
seJaser the acts OF the plaintiff In aiight-
IL nor the acts OF the persons In charge
I. The east-boand car any further.
II you believe from the preponderance
4 syidsnc. In this case that at and imrae-
6ateiy prior 20 the accident an question
ns plaintiff acted as persons OF ordinary
sfu6snce generally act under csrcum
sanees entirely similar. AID that said
hsury occurred by reason OF the IA I that
es.sndant's agents or servants or some OF
sen failed 10 exercise such care in re-
a.on to these cars in question and TO
Esrlln - careful servants OF such COM
aslss generally use in circumstances en-
.ysiy similar, then your verdict will be
!x piAlntir I'm such gross sum as will. In
rssnng, II any, mental or physical, his
ha o. time, II any. his expense, II any.
ssrsssarily Incurred hy him for physi-
ears, injuries Of a permanent nature. II
as. which plaintiff has sustained.
II you DO not believe from the prepon-
asrsncs Of evidence that plaintiff acted
- persons OF ordinary prudence generally
1T IN circumstances entirely similar, or
- Al a n
t,pry vas not occasioned directly by any
szl.gent act OF defendants servants.
's<n your verdict must be for the defend
ut provided. however. that should you
I'd that the plaintiff was guilty OF only
kAsat negligence in the promises. and that
sd accident occurred by reason OF gross
sxgenoe OF defendants servant or ser-
ANTS. you will then find for the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding such slight negligence
q his part
~ accident In question occurred at q
esn; Of Intersection OF n street and pub
e highway Ia the city of Seattle on
hs tine az railway OF defendant where
zsny people were and had been for a long
he TO the knowledge ~ defendant ac-
sstemed 10 cross such line. and that
eel that many people might be upon the
ne Of the road while so crossing. then
= law requires that tho defendant exer-
Sc great care and precaution 10 avoid
as Injury Of persons who might be using
AZ street. One element OF this case and
ss;ion exacted by the law Is the giving
I reasonable warning OF the near APP
fasch OF Its cars 10 such crossing 80 ss
Iarning os such approaching cars. This
resolution relates as much To persons
lighting from its own cars travelling In
IPessse directions as TO those using the
usllc street II no such signal or warn
= sss given OF the approach or the as
sadins car which inflicted the injuries
7npained ~ In this case, and you find
ON the evidence such failure TO give
sxsensele warning was the prosimsie
snse o. the injuries without contrihutory
sghgenee on the part OF the PLAINTIFF.
'Alnuh Il entitled 10 recover.
II person be seen on the track OF
''eet railway II may be assumed. II the
IRON oe sn adult. as he was tu this case.
a1 he will leave the track before the
an or car reaches him. and this pre-
fnption may be indulgeds an 80 long as
y longer From the time that danger
Nsefass Imminent IL becomes the duty Of
ga railway company 20 use great care
AVER Il. and the failure 10 do - VIII
nsatase euipahle negligence which may
niay not ax liability. as that question
~ be affected by congrfhutory nrgsi-
ne . any. Of the person injured.
th'oxieafion on the part of the plaintifT.
fsE 4s -
sNse 10 the action unless Il IN faes pre-
e'ss The plaintiff from using reasonable
- shd unless his want OF reasonable
s - contributed 20 his injury.
was The duty % piai. til 20 make rea-
aao'e use Of his faculties 10 avoaa tn
-. " from che evidence YOU believe he
&C 70 make use 81 his faculties for such
.esSe ard that such failure contributed
. s.aa;'n's injury. then your verdict must
~ defendant.
he fact that plalntr allxhted from
: sas'-eonnd car while the same was IA
80 contributed - his injury ir any
. anita degree. then your verdict must
TX Defendant.
.sa gentlemen. are the sole Judges Of
: ssess 81 the case and ~ tho eraauhfv
.ssSes, and *0u uisv consider the
sassaor ot witnesses ora The stand their
80, y any, tn ERE result Ten OF more
! Say eTsng IN verdict
~ sNe'aeh 20 ire gcnersi verdict. tho
q .'lsFshE 20 lnterroe stories submit
-, N'e court. retaraoi number of
- feroicts In Waich iaev ,fecsAed tha,
a. NAs not intoxicated at the time
- @cesdent. 'hat no ~ With ordi-
t*a~snos; THAT the eass-boana ear