The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-10-31


! assessing damages for the death OF a
minor child the child of poor parents is not
of as much value as the child of rich
parents.
We submit that no such opinion has
been rendered by the Supreme Court or
I any member of that court in the case
ing so, it is but just that the facts should
be stated so that people outside OF the
profession may know the truth.
We, therefore. respectfully ask you to
/ briefly state the facts relating to that de-
MORRIS NJ. ESTEE,
JOHN CARRIER
GARRETT w. McENERNEY.
To this letter many answers have
/ been received. The following form of
reply was signed by Judges of the Su-
perior Courts whose signatures are ap-
| pended:
| To the People of California: We. the
undersigned Commissioners of the Su-
! preme Court and Judges of the Superior
! Courts of the State of California, re-
spectfuIly represent that we are familiar
/ with the decision rendered by the Su
preme Court of California in the case of
Fox vs.. the Oakland Railroad Company,
and reported in 11S Cal, page So.
The opinion in that case was written
by Justice Van Fleet, and was conquered
in in department by Chief Justice Beatty
and Justice Harrison and was confirmed
by the other Justices of the Supreme
Court by a refusal to grant rehearing.
Inc opinion correctly states the law OIL
this State on the question involved there
in, and it nowhere appears therein that
in an action for damages for the death of
minor child that the child of poor
man is not as valuable as that of a rich
man. On the contrary, the opinion states
in words that:
After a careful review Of the au-
thorities we are clearly of the opin-
ion that the question of the parents
neglect cannot be made to turn upon
the state of his finances, and that
the rulings of the lower court in this
respect were erroneous.
Neither the Supreme Court of this State
nor any Justice thereof has ever rendered
an opinion to the effect that there was
a difference in value in the life of a minor
child dependent upon the financial con-
ditiOn of it's parents
We venture to make this statement to
the public at the request of certain mem
bers of the bar and in Vindication of the
truth in this matter.
The foregoing is signed by the follow
ing Judges of the Superior Courts in the
counties named: J. c. B: Hebbard,
city and county of San Francisco; E. S.
Torrance, San Diego; John L. Campbell,
Frank F. Oster, San Bernardino; J. w.
Allen, Los Angeles; Wheaton A. Gray,
Tulare; J. r. Webb, E. w. Risley, Fres-
no; N. A. Dorm, Monterey; Edward ].
1
mento; Frank T. Nilon, Nevada A ].
| Buckles, Solano; w G. Lorigan, Santa
Clara; Albert G. Burnett, Sonoma; E. D.
Ham, Napa; E. E. Gadis. Yolo; Joseph
P. Jones, Contra Costa; ]. NJ. Mannon,
Mendocino; Edward Sweeney, Shasta; z.
A. Davis. Yuba and Suffer; F. A. Kelly,
| Lassen; T. E. Jones, Trinity; Stanley A.
Smith. Sierra; Niles Searls, l. S. Belcher,
| John Hayes, N. 2. Chapman, E. w. Britt,
Commissioners of the Supreme Court.
Several other Judges expressed similar
opinions, and in addition thereto made
statements from which the following ex-
tracts are given:
Hon. Joseph H. Budd, San Joaquin
On the contrary, that court (the Su-
preme CourD stated in the opinion in
this case of Fox, quoting with approval
| the language of Judge Dillon, that
there is not in this country one rule
of law for the rich and a different rule
for the poor"
Hon. William o. Miner, Stanislaus-
AS a matter Of common fairness I will
say that l am familiar with the opin-
ion Of the court in the case of Fox VS..
Oakland Consolidated Railway Com
pany, and that Judge Van Fleet did not
say in the opinion in that case nor in
any other that I know of that the child
of poor man is not as valuable as the
child of rich man.
Hon. Carroll Cook, city and county of
San Francisco will say, after a care
full reading of the opinion filed in the
| Fox case, / am unable to find any state
ment therein from which 1t can be in
ferred that the court held the value of
poor mans child to be less than that
of the child of a rich man. On the con-
trary, from some of the language used
the contrary can be inferred, for Ian
guage Is used from which the inference
can be clearly drawn that the child of
a laborer is of greater value to him,
pecuniarily than would be the child of
capitalist TO him.
Hon. Lucian Shaw, Los Angeles-"The
value of the life of child was not in
controversy in the Fox case. The uues-
ices which the child would probably
have rendered to or for its parents dur
ing its minority if 1t had lived" Judge
Shaw then takes the same view as
stated by Judge Cook as to the infer
ence in favor of the poor mans child
Hon. F. NJ. Angellotti, Marin-I have
carefully examined the opinion in the
Fox case and ] am unable to find any
! thing therein that intimates that the
value of the life of poor mans son is
less than that of a rich mans son. In
view of some of the charges that have
been made against Judge Van Fleet in
regard to this opinion, I deem it only
fair to make this statement.
| Hon. John f. Allison, Tehama-After
stating clearly the real issue in the
case Judge Ellison adds:
While 1t is true, as suggested in the
| press, that boy NAV become a profess
/ sional man or successful business man,
the court could not overlook the fact
| that when he did become either the one
] or the other he would have obtained
! his majority, and with his majority his
fathers right to his services would
cease and they would be the exclusive