The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-05-18
TO SUPREME COURT
WeiSt Damage Case Will Be
Appealed For Reversal.
THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS
Given Plaintiff City Now Free
of Damage Cases.

WIZ SUeu the CITY TOT Sl5,p00 damage Tor
injury sustained from falling on a de-
fective sidewalk on Wabash avenue Feb
ruary 3, 1897. Mrs. Weist claims the dam
age for her eyes.
The trial occupied almost a week from
the beginning until the verdict was
brought In by the jury.
This is the second trial Of the case. the
verdict in the first case being for 81, zoo.
J. D, Huston represented the plaintiff and
Adams & Adams the defendant. This is
the first time in two years that a verdict
has been rendered against the city for
damages, and the case viii go to the su-
preme court
The case of Isabella Butts against the
city was dismissed. in which she claim
ed $1,000 damage
When the jury was called in the case
OF Z. c. Andres against the city. Gang
an action for 5000 damage for nersonaI
injuries the plaintiff dismissed her case.
ms takes from the docket all cases Of
personal injury against the city. and il
Is the first time in ten years that the city
has. been free from this class of cases.
Inc following special questions were
supHItted 10 the jury:
In the district court of Sedgwiclx coun- |
ty, Kansas
Mary Weist Plaintiff. VS. the City Of |
Wichita, Defendant.
SPECIAL QUESTIONS.
If the jury find for the plaintiff in this |
case then they will answer the followiu |
special questions; if you find for the |
plaintiff
Did the PLAINTIFF fall on defendants |
walk in February, 1897. on Wabash ave-
nue., in front of A. T. HeIlar's lot or resi-
dence, and, if so. what date?
Yes February 3 1891
Was said sidewalk improperly con-
structed at the place where plaintiff
claims to have been injured?
Yes.
If you answer No. in the affirmative,
then state in what particular said side
walk was improperly constructed.
Boards loose. broken, missing, string
ers decayed.
Was the plaintiff injured by reason of
the negligence of the defendant city?
Yes.
If you answer No. in the affirmative
then state all the acts Of negligence
which caused the injury to plaintiff upon
which you base a liability against the
city?
Failure to replace missing. loose and
broken boards
What caused plaintiff to fall, If she
fell?
Tripped by broken board.
If board. how long was the board?
About four feet
Was the board that plaintiff claims
caused her to fall nailed to the stringer
or stringers of said sidewalk at said
time?
No.
Did any officer of the city of Wichita
have actual notice or knowledge that the
sidewalk where plaintiff claims to have
been injured. was out of repair prior TO
the time that the plaintiff claims to have
been injured?
No
Had the plaintiff been over the side
walk at the place where she claims to
have been injured frequently during sew
eral weeks or months preceding the time
she claims TO have been injured?
Yes. !
Was the plaintiff familiar with the con-
diton Of the sidewalk at the time and
place where she claims to have fallen
and been injured?
Yes :
Could the plaintiff have seen the side
walk at the time and place she claims to
have been injured had she looked?
Yes.
Did the plaintiff believe the sidewalk
D-as danuarorts at tho TIM, orJ No. !
claims to have fallen?
Not more than any other place
Did the plaintiff believe that the side
walk in front of A T. HelIar's was dan
gerous at the time she claims to have
fallen?
Yes.
Could the plaintiT have reached her ,
destination on the evening in question hy
any other route than by passing over the
sidewalk in front Of A T. HeIars, where
she claims 10 have fallen? {
Yes .
Was there anything 70 prevent the Y
plaintiff from stepping OF Of the side il
walk on the evening in question and {
walking along the side Of said sidewalk il
or near 10 said sidewalk, in front Of \. t
T. Hellar's? l.
Yes; muddy (
Did the plaintiff ever make any com &
plant 10 the city OF Wichita or its offic- q
srs or agents. that she claimed damages b
on account OF fan prior to the time c
she filed her claim against the city? h
No. a
Did the plaintiff notify or cause TO be
notified Mr.. Hellar or any Of the neSEh-
hors adjacent TO the place where she 4
ciaims 10 have fallen on said sidewalk
prior 10 the time Of filing her claim for
DANA ges7 y
No !,
What witness, II any testified that the c
particular board that plaintiff caused her o
20 fall was not nailed 10 the strinsers b
underlying said sidewalk?
John Walden, "A
Did not Mrs. Weist state to Mrs. Y
sweazy prior to the time that she claims ic
70 have been. injured that she had the G
scrofula in her eyes and was afraid she d
would lose her eyes on account of it. or
words 10 that effect?
No. "
Was the sassed board intact and nail