Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-03-23
M'BRlDE CASES SETTLED.
Little Carrie Bradley Gets $..o0o-Ncw
Trial Refused in McAIeer Ease.


tween cars at Townsend. The defence
then put in its testimony. Supervisor
Mahoney explained plot of part OF
Townsend where.the accident occurred.
Mrs. Josephine r. Phillips testified
that she was standing on her porch near
the railroad when the accident oc-
Cured. She saw the Weldon boy run
from behind an old factory and into the
space between the cars, which were
moving at the time. Richard Hodg-
son. station agent, Charles Mann,
brakeman, and Charles Sweeney,
freight conductor, were also on the
stand. Adjournment was made until
Monday morning.
The $40, 900 damage case of John
Weldon, by his next friend, VS.. the
Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore
Railroad Co. went to the jury about
H. 10 O'Clock Tuesday afternoon on tho
charge of Chief Justice Charles B.
Lore. The charge touched upon the
two points rs to whether the place
where young Weldon was injured was
permissive way and as to contrbutory
negligence. After the jury had retired,
exceptions to the charge were noted
for both sides.
The damage suit of Hayden VS.. the
r., w. 4 b. was continued until next
term.
The cases of Carrie r. Bradley and
of the administrators of Jennie II. Nc
Bride and Thomas W. Mcbride against
the Philadelphia, Wilmington d Balti
more Railroad CO., which were to 60
to trial at this term of court, were an
nounced Tuesday as settled. William
S. Hilles represented Mrs. McBride's
al r1,. \
McBride's daughter, and William L.
Lyman represented Thomas w. Nc
Brides administrator. The Bradley
girl received $1,000, but what was al
lowed in the other cases, is not an
nounced. The railroad company was
represented by IL. II. Ward and An
drew G. Gray.
The accident on account of which
the suits were brought occurred at
Stanton on December oath, 1897, when
the three persons, who lived near Stan
ton, were on the way to the Whining
ton market. Their wagon was struck
by an express train and Fir. and Mrs.
Mcbride were killed. The child was
seriously injured but, after spending
some time in the Delaware Hospital,
recovered.
After hearing argument, the Superior
Court, on Tuesday, denied the motion
| for new trial in the case of Charles
F. McAleer VS.. +. Blumenthal & Co.,
| in which jury had awarded $4,000
damages for the loss of the sight of an
| eye.
The court sustained demurrers in the
case of Hiram M. Thomas VS.. the
Grand Trunk Railway Co., and the
case will go over until the next term.
The court announced that no cases
would be tried after March 2Sth. Two
cases are to be tried before then
Richard Gear VS.. the r., w. & d. rail
road, and George v. Anderson VS.. the
Mayor and Council of Wilmington.
In charging the jury Tuesday in the
case Of John Weldon VS.. the p, W. &
| B. Railroad Co. the Superior Court
laid down the. law with reference to
crossing railroad company's siding.
the plaintiff having claimed that he
was crossing the siding at Townsend
under the protection of a permissive or
I implied license from the company itself,
and even at the invitation of tho COM
pany. 'It is claimed in this case, :"
said Chief Justice Lore, in reading the
charge, "that the defendant company
frequently left openings between the
cars = among other places at
or about the place of the injury, thus
inviting the people to cross there. If
such openings were left by the de-
PENDANT company for its own con-
venience, in shifting or placing cars
upon its own siding, even though such
openings were quite uniformly at or
about the place named; such openings
would not amount to an invitation to
the people to use the crossing, unless
you should be satisfied from the eyi
dence in this case, that such openings
were so made and left expressly for the
use Of the people.
1.-THE company had right to use its
own siding in the prosecution of its
business and to leave openings between
the cars on that siding when and where
it pleased, so far as mere permissiye
crossers we're concerned. Moreover the
presumption of the law is shat such
openings were left for the convenience
of the company. This presumption,
however, may be rebutted, if there be
evidence which satisfies you, that such
openings were not left for the con
venience of the company, but to accom-
modate the public. L
"We have dwelt thus fully upon this
subject of permissive way because il
involves questions somewhat new in
this State, and never heretofore pre-
cisely adiudicated; and because it is a
crucial point in the case. For we say
to you, that if you should find from
the evidence, that at the time of the
accident, John Weldon, the plaintiff,
was crossing that railroad merely by
the permission or acquiescepee Of the
defendant company, he cannot recover
in this pnSp. unlnSS Won lhQnlH tinG
that the injuries of which he com
plains, were the result of gross negli.
gence or reckless or wanton carelessness
on the part of the defendant; for in
such case he went upon that crossing
at his own risk and must take the con
sequences. The company would not be
liable for the mere want of ordinary
care. !"
If the jury were satisfied that Weldon
was crossing the railroad at the invita-
tion of the company and was injured
by the negligence of tho company with
out fault on his part therein consider
ing his age, intelligence, familiarity
with the place and all the surround
ings) then the verdict should be for the
plaintiff for such reasonable sum as
would compensate him for his injuries.
If he contributed to the injury, hi
could not recover.
The jury in the foregoing case, which
retired about II. 10 O'Clock ON Tuesday
afternoon for elaboration remained Out
! all night, and yesterday sent a note
TO the court announcing that it stooC
the same as it did when it went out
that it could not agree. and asking Il
be discharged. The court declined tt
| order n discharge.