The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-10-12
JURY HAS NO RIGHT
To View Damaged Premises
Years After Damage Occurs
SAY LEHMANS ATTORNEYS
Case in the Appellate Court
Against Wichita Gas Co.

Among the interesting cases heard by
the appellate court yesterday was that
OF G. E. Lehman against the Wichita
Gas, Electric Light and Power company.
In which Mr.. Lehman is suing for dam
age to the trees. shrubbery and grass on
ahis property on North Lawrence avenue
by escaping gas from the companys de-
fective mains. Mr.. Lehman brought the
suit in the district court in 1894 to recov-
'er dooo damages, but the jury returned
"a verdict of only $13 in his favor two
years after the damage had occurred.
Being refused new trial, ne apoe Esd he
case. The counsel for Mr.. Lehman
claim in their contention for a reversal
OF the lower court, several errors, chief
among which is the fact that the lower
court permitted the jury to visit the
property and assess the amount Of in
Juries two years after the trees and
Shrubbery had been killed by the escap-
7ng of gas, and the trees and shrubbery
mad all been removed and replaced with
new, and the lawn had been resown. The
plaintif claims that the jury could not
properly estimate damage at that long a
time after twas accomplished. The
plaintiff claims that all of his shrubberv.
f1rees and the fine lawn about his resi-
dence were killed by the escaping gas
from defective gas main, and the com
pany did not repair the main until after
several notifications by Mr.. Lehman,
when they found the hole in the main di
rectly in front Of the house.
The attorneys for the plaintiff state
that in their opinion it is doubtful wheth-
er the district court should have permit
ted the jury to have viewed the premises
an this case at all, for the reason that it
mad been two years since the injury had
occurred to the trees that had died and
been removed and other trees and shrub
'bery planted in their stead. because the
jury could not arrive at a. proper con-
ception Of the amount Of damage done.
Inasmuch as there is considerable COM
plant in this city now on this same
score, the opinion of the court will be of
interest to the property holders. The case
was submitted upon the briefs filed.
Other cases were disposed Of as follows:
David Z. Foster VS.. Board of County
Commissioners of Lyon county. appealed
from Lyon county; argued by ]. J. Buck
for defendant and submitted on briefs.
w H Barger vs. Josiah Sample. ap-
pealed from Greenwood county; continued
as per stipulation
Girard Life Insurance Company VS.. II.
". Loving, appealed from Sumner coun-
ty; argued by James Lawrence for plain
Tiff and James A. Ray for defendant. and
submitted on briefs
Mary G. Briggs vs. Chas. w. Wilson ct
al, appealed from Harper county; mo-
Hion by defendant In error to dismiss
cause, and motion to dismiss apneaI
argued by J. P. Grove for the motion
and A. c. Richardson for plaintiff. Sub
United on plaintiffs brief. and parties
given thirty days for defendant to file
bond and ten days after service for plain
tiff to file leave to file affidavit
The Fleming & Ayrst Company VS.. ].
q. Evans ct al. appealed from Lyon
county; continued to January term.
Thomas J. Black ct al VS. w. G.. john
son, appealed from Reno county; sub
united on briefs.
St Joseph Loan and Trust Company VS..
Joseph B. Dane ct al, appealed from
Reno county; submitted on PLAINTIFF
brief, and leave to defendant to file brief
in thirty days.
Gra-To-Su-Me VS.. z. c. Gray, appealed
from Cowley county; dismissed for fall
ure to file briefs
First National Bank of Arkansas City
VS.. Henrietta Ames, appealed from Cow
ley county; motion by defendant to dis
miss petition argued by Mr. Lafferty for
plaintiff and submitted on briefs
John W. Skinner. sheriff. VS.. First Ma
tional Bank of Winfield. appealed from
Cowley county; continued on stipulation.
w. s. Marlin etc, VS.. r. f. Tech
greaber ct al, appealed from Greenwood
county; motion submitted to correct
transcript filed. Motion argued by Mr..
Hodgson for plaintiff and J. V. Dough-
erty for defendant: submitted on briefs.
The Alliance Trust Company VS.. Homer
/. Wilson. appealed from Harper coun-
~; argued by Mr.. Cook for plaintiff in
error and submitted on briefs.
New York Life Insurance Company VS..
c. A. Duncan ct al. appealed from Sedg-
wick county; submitted on briefs.
Everett Westcott adminstrato VS.. H.
Whitesides ct al. appealed from Reno
county; motion by defendants to dismiss.
Plaintiff allowed ten days to serve and
file reply to motion
c. c. Binkley vs. W. H Dewau, admin
istrator. etc. appealed from Harper
county; argued by E. c. Wilson for plain
tiff and Geo. f. McAIahan for defendant:
submitted on briefs
Samuel Rosenwald ct al vs.. c. NJ.
Zones ct al, appealed from Sedgwick
county; dismissed at cost II plaintiff
Geo. II. Lautis vs. Samuel f. Davidson.
AANNNNAANAAAAAA~