The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-01-25
SUING FOR HER INSURANCE.
MRS. J. w. WYNEss' CLAIM AGAINST
THE TRAVELLERS.

Was the Shooting of Wyness an Ae-
eident n Question the Jury VIII
BE Asked 40 Answer-Mrs. Wyness
Suing for the $4,000 Claimed to BE
Due on an Accident Policy Held by
Her sband-Statements of keRr-
ney and HaIIinan Submitted in Ev-
idence.
The suit of Mrs. Jennie s. wyness
against the Travellers Insurance Company
OF Hartford, Conn, for $500 being the
amount of accident policy held by her late
husband, John w. Wyness, in the com.
pany named, was begun yesterday in the
City Court.
The case is an interesting one The cir
cumstances leading UP 10 the suit will be
remembered by the readers of the Morn.
ing News. On the night of Nov. 80, 1896.
Mr.. Wyness was in Taylor's barroom at
the corner of Oglethorpe avenue and
Price street with a party of friends All
the party had been drinking. In
seuffie which succeeded a dispute pistol
was fired by Patrick Kearney, and the
bullet was received by Wyness in the
upper part of his body.
After lingering for a number of days
at the ST. Josephs Infirmary wyness died
without ever having made a clear state
ment of the affair. On one occasion he
said that it was an accident. On another
that Kearney had shot him, but no full
statement of the shooting was made by
him.
There was no doubt of the fact that
kearney did the shooting The important
point, both for him and for Mrs. Wyness,
was whether the shooting was an acci-
dent or intentional. If an accident, Kerr
ney would come clear, and Mrs. Wyness
would receive the insurance upon her nus
bands life. the policy in the Travellers
held by her husband providing that in
case OF death from accidental causes the
fun amount of 5000 should be paid.
IL was a grave question of doubt wheth-
er the shot had been fired by Kearney Witt
murderous intent. The companions who
We're with him and Wyness at the time
OF the shooting did not think So
tearney protested that IL was an acct
ueut' ana the statement of the deceased
70 TINS effect was used by the defense for
all 1t was worth
- was Thought that the fact that the
| payment OF the accident policy by the COM
pany would depend, to a large extent
upon the verdict of the jury would have
| some weight with that body.
On account of the repeated outrages up-
on human life, which had occurred about
| that times, there was very strong SEN
| tlment in favor of prompt and severe pun
ishment of such crimes. After a closely
contested trial, Kearney was convicted Of
| murder with recommendation 10 the
mercy or the court and was sentenced TO
the penitentiary for life.
| AS had been foTeseen the insurance
company refused to pay the policy. and
mrs. Wyness, by the advice of her attor-
neys, entered suit
! Yesterday was consumed in taking evil
dence. The statements of the witnesses to
the shooting were received, being prac-
! tically the same as those made at the trial
! of Kearney.
Kearney's sworn. statement, made by him
! before his departure from Savannah. to
the effect that the shooting was accident
| al, was introduced, as was also
| that of Joseph Mailman The
latter was bookkeeper for the S. and S.
| Beef Company, of which Wyness was
manager. Shortly after the shooting, it
| developed that there was a shortage in
his accounts, which he was unable to
make good and as the result he is now
| serving a two-year's sentence to the pen-
itentiary. He arrived on the scene about
the time of the trouble and saw Kearnev
back Wyness out of the saloon door, pis-
| tol in hand Hallinan's statement is
against the accident theory. though he
could not testify positively on this point.
When he reached Wyness after the shoot
ing the latter said to him that Kearnev
had shot him.
The position of the Plaintiffs ATTORNEYS is
that II the shooting was not clearly an ac-
cident in the ordinary sence of the term
that 1t was due to such gross carelessness
on the part of Kearney in handling his
weapon as to constitute a crime. though
still an accident so far as the deceased
was concerned.
The attorneys are r. r. Richards and
Geo. Mercer. Jr., for the plaintiff and
Barrow & Osborne for the company.
Some time was spent in securing iurv
it being found that several of the nanel
were disqualified by reason of having
heard the testimony under oath at the
time of the Kearney trial, and two bv
having served upon the Kearney jury. The
following jury will pass upon the case
r. S. Anderson, John r. Bailey. Frank
Bashlor, John d. Charlton John w. Har.
ris, A. H. Lane, Joseph p Lee, A. H
Moore. L. T. Raines, Henry w. Iangbell
Harvey L. Fell and Charles F. Yokum.
The case was continued until this morn.
ing and will probably occupy the entire
day in the City Court.