The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-06-10
JURY GAVE PRINCE $1,000.
he CAME VERY NEAR GETTING
TWICE THAT SUM.

Scene of the Accident and Made
Experiments for Itself-On Re
turning the Jurors Asked to BE
Rechnrgcd on the Subject of Dam
ages where Both Parties Are Gull
~ OF NegIfgencc-Mr. Osborne's At
tack on Prince Did Not Sit Wen
with the Jury.
The jury in the case of e. L. Prince
against the Savannah, Thunderbolt and
Isle Of Hope Railroad awarded Mr.. Prince
$500 damages. The verde. was brought
in shorty before O'Clock yesterday. The
amount was not as large as Mr.. Princes
friends had hoped for, but the plaintiff
himself seemed well pleased The mani
fest pleasure with which he received the
verdict was due in large part TO the fact
that he regarded it as a vindication of the
charges made against him in the prog,
ress Of the case.
Judge Norwood delivered a lengthy and
exhaustive charge TO the jury. After re-
ceiving the charge the jurors retired, but
shortly afterward returned with a request
that they be allowed 90 visit the scene
of the accident for the purpose of settling
some disputed points which had arisen.
This permission was granted, and the jury
went 10 the scene in charge of Bailiffs
Morgan and Ryan, a special car being fur
nished by the street railway company for
the purpose About an hour was spent
in the neighbOrhOod of Waters road and
Bolton street, during which time there
was considerable measuring of distances
and squirting along the track for the pur-
pose of ascerlaning at what distance the
Plaintiff could have seen che car APP
preaching.
The motorman in charge of the car ran
il up and down the track past the point
of the accident a number of times for the
benefit of the jury. Some of the latter
were Skeptcal as to che car having
speed of only a mile an hour at the time
of the accident and then running forty or
fifty feet before it could be stopped Il
Is said that one of the jurymen. not salts
fed with the motorman's demonstra tfon
seized hold OF the controller himself and
brought the car TO a stop within a shorter
distance than the motorman had done.
lt was learned after the verdict had
been rendered that at the first vote taken
after the jury reached its room, eleven
of the twelve voted in favor of a verdict
for $4,000 The twelfth man was in favor
of giving only very small damages, If any
at all. The object of the visit of tho
jury TO the scene of the accident 1t ia
said, was 10 convince him of the correct
ness of the position taken by other men,
bers Of the jury
II was about / o'clock when the jury
returned 10 the court house After re-
naming in their room a short time re-
quest was sent down that Judge Norwood
charge the jury again on certain points
When Il had been brought down Fore
man f. l.. Hoffman stated that the point
on which they wished to be recharged was
as to the law on the subject OF damages
where both parties to the accident had
been guilty Of contributory negligence.
This question was taken to indicate that
the jury believed both parties to have
been guilty of negligence, and that conse-
quently the verdict would be for small
damages. if any.
Judge Norwood first read from the sec
ton of the code bearing on this question.
to the effect that no person can recover
damages for any injuries caused by a
railroad company If The same be done
with his consent or as The result Of his
negligence. Where both parties are at
fault the plaintiff can recover but the
plaintiffs negligence must be taken into
consideration. and less amount of dam
ages awarded than would otherwise be
the case Where The plaintiff could have,
DA Of1NdIN care aNDlueQ the dCcluenL
he cannot recover.
Judge Norwood charged the jury that
where the injury is the result of mutual
negligence on the part Of the plaintiff and
the defendant there can be no recovery
unless the plaintiff was less in fault than
The defendant. Where both parties are
at fault, but the greater negligence is on
the part Of ihe plaintiff he cannot recover.
With the greater negligence on the part
.1rfa araH he ku -
10 damages, but his negligence must be
taken into consideration in awarding The
damages. There are also cases where
negligence does not prevent the plaintiff
from recovery, where the exercise of ord
mary care would not have awaited to pre-
Nent the accident.
After receiving this charge the jury re-
tired aud about twenty minutes later
word was sent down that a verdict had
been reached. The verdict did not cause
any surprise in the court room, as it was
about what had been expected after the
jury had indicated its leaning In the re-
quest to be recharged. Mr. Prince was
congratulated by a number of his friends
on the successful conclusion of mis- fight
member of the jury. in speaking of
the case afterwards. said that the at
tack by Attorney Osborne upon Mr..
Prince had a very unfavorable effect up
on the jury creating an impression OPP
posite TO that intended Several of the
members of the jury were acquaintances
of Mr. Prince, or knew him by reputa-
ton, and they did not consider that his
conduct on the stand in any way justified
Mr. Osborne's remarks. There has been
considerable unfavorable criticism of the
attorneys course in his attack upon the
Plaintiff 10 the case. Mr.. Prince has been
in the employ OF the Plant system in one
OF its clerical departments for the last
seven years, and is highly esteemed by
his fellow employees. vino speak of him
a s thoroughly conscientious and upright
Mr.. Prince, his friends say, is a man
of nervous and highly sensitive tempera-
ment, which condition was further az
gravated by his experience under the
trolley car, ard that ii was entirely nat
ural that he should have become ratified
under the sharp fire OF cross questions
poured upon him by the opposing coun-
sell
The case has been hard fought and has
aroused more interest than any similar
damage suit in years, with the possible
exception OF the Read case. in which a
non-suig was granted by Judge Norwood