The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-06-02
HUMoR IN A COURT CASE.
Remarkable Contentious in Briefs
Presented to the Tennessee SUI
preme Court.

Presented to the Tennessee SUI
preme Court.
From the New York Times.
The humor of the court room, of which
much has been said and written and which
recently furnished member of the Texas
bar the excuse for making a book, was
strlkingly illustrated the other day in a
case decided by Judge Wilkes of the Ten
nessee Supreme Court. The case was that
of the Southern Railway Company against
Phillips, which came up from the Circuit
Court of James county. The case was
stated thus: I'm an action to recover
damages for injuries to plaintiffs mare
while on defendants track II appeared
that the animal ran on the track in front
of one of defendants engines, that the en-
gIneer used every effort 10 compel her 20
get off the track, and finally succeeded,
when the animal ran onto trestle bridge
and was injured Held that there was no
negligence on the part of the railroad COM
pany, and judgment for plaintiff was re-
Versed."
Judge Wilkes, in his opinion, reviews the
case as presented by an agreed statement
of facts, and then says that an examina>
ton of the briefs of attorneys discloses
much that Is not in the record. Thus the
counsel for the railroad company con
tends that the mare inflicted the injuries
upon herself, insisting that the proximate
cause of the injury was the determination
of the mare TO cross the bridge when she
might much more readily have gone down
the siX-foot embankment, and been safe,
that she was guilty of the grossest con-
tributory negligence in her efforts to cross
the bridge, in stepping on the vacant
spaces between the ties, and not on the ties
themselves. 1t is insisted that the rail-
road did all it could to prevent injury; that
the fireman approached the animal in a
quiet, peaceable, undemonstrative manner.
and with the best of intentions; that it was
in January; the weather was cold, and the
fireman could not be expected TO wade the
creek in order to get around the animal
and prevent her from crossing the trestle;
and besides, such proceeding would have
caused delay, interfered with the commerce
between the states, and exposed the train
to be run into front or rear or both by
other trains.
II is argued that common observation
teaches that horse. will not cross an open
trestle, and that an elephant viii not cross
a bridge, even when it is doored and, the
horse being the most intelligent of the
dumb animals, the fireman had a right 10
presume 1t would leave the track down the
embanknent, instead of attempting a trap
exc performance in mdair. 1t is also said
by counsel, as an evidence of the fireman's
SOOu idllH, mat WnSn ne saw the animal
cross the first tresle and come to the sec
ond and hesitate, he then went entirely
around her and enjoined her from going
over the second one; and it is insisted that
government by injunction in such a case Is
legitimate and proper.
The counsel fer the plaintiff insists
however. that the fireman knew that the
general course of the mare was along the
track, and that she was frightened, and
common sense dictated that he should get
off the track and go around the animal
instead of following on behind her. Coun-
sci say that they do not insist that the fire.
man should have waded the creek to get
around the mare, but he should have got
ten out to one side and 'shooed' her off
the bank like "A woman shooes her chick
ems out of the flowerbed 1t is argued by
the counsel for the plaintiff that when the
mare stopped at The treste and hesitated
TO cross t she showed good horse sense,
and, If the fireman had shown as much
sense as the mare, the accident would nos
have happened.
Counsel for the railroad company cite
the court to the case of Holder VS. Rail
road Company IL Lea, 176, as controlling
in this case In that case a mule jumped
ON the track in front of an approaching
train. The whistle was sounded, the bell
rung, the mule ran along the track IN
front OF the train until it reached u tres
tie, jumped off, and was killed. The train
Ia the meantime had been stopped. The
court held the railroad not liable. as the
train did not strike the mule. but it killed
itself by jumping from fright and also
from the bridge. The consideration of this |
case has given the court much concern 1t
has been before the court In consultation
more than once, besides being very ex- |
haustively argued at the bar 1t is very
earnestly impressed upon us that the case |
in II Lea is not controlling and that il |
must be distinguished from this case on |
several grounds Il is insisted that the |
first difference in the two cases is that in |
that case il was a mule and In the present