The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-01-25
GAVE HIM SMALL DAMAGES.
JURY IN POLHILL SUIT BROUGHT IN
VERDICT FOR 81 900.


Charge, Reviewing the Entire Ev-
fdence and Carefully Instructing
the Jurors as TO the Weight to Be
Given to Expert Electromagnetic
hills Attorneys Likely to Appeal
for IL New Trial.
The jury in the United States Court in
the suit of Mr.. John H. Polhiu against
the Florida Central and Peninsular Rail-
road, yesterday afternoon, at 2 O'Clock,
came In with verdict in favor of Mr.. Pol
hill In the sum of 81, 600
1t Is the impression that Mr.. Polhilrs
attorneys will appeal for new trial, on
the ground that the damages are made
quate for injuries received.
Judge Speer charged the jury at consid-
cradle length. As he pointed out, the is
sue was very simple. "Was the plaintiff
injured as he alleged as a result of the col
lision. You need not, in my opinion" said
he, take long to inquire whether or not
the defendant company was guilty of neg
hgence. 1t is true, generally, that if a
passenger without fault of his own is in
jured while riding on a train of a rail-
road company by a collision of trains the
jury will be justified in concluding that 1t
was due to the negligence of the company
SO far as the passenger is affected. Be
ginning with this proposition, and con
GLIDING as you may well do that because
of that collision the defendant company
was guilty of negligence toward all of the
passengers including the plaintiff, your
inquiry should be simply this: Was the
plaintiff injured as he alleged as the result
of that negligence. The plaintiff says he
was. The defendant says he was not, and
that is the issue you are to try.
There were a great many people on
that train, who were not injured, and /
think it is the law and so charge you that
the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to
show that he was injured by the colis-
ion. If you are satisfied by evidence that
he has done this, then if he suffered sub
sequent and immediate physical or mental
Affections or both which might reason
ably be the natural consequences of the
hurt he received at the time of the col
lision, then the burden of proof is on the
defendant TO satisfy you that those subse-
quent injuries did not result from that
hurt. Now, in trials like this 1t is scarce
ly ever possible for either party to furnish
evidence which is absolutely demonstra-
tive. All that is required by the law is
that the evidence shall produce such
moral and reasonable conviction upon the
mind as viii satisfy the intelligence and
conscience of upright jurors You may
have a reasonable doubt In a civil case
as to the propriety of particular finding
and yet, If the evidence so strongly pre-
pondeTates in favor of that finding as to
produce on your minds the moral and rea-
sonable conviction that you ought to make
it, you are justified in making it, notwith-
standing such a doubt.
Judge Speer then reviewed the testimony
of Mr.. Polhill and of the witnesses for
him. He went over the evidence thor
oughly, giving the substance of it care
fully, and bringing out the salient fea-
lures so that the jurors could carefully fol-
low it. He then took up the evidence pre-
scented for the defense and handled II In
the same manner. His able and quite ex-
haustive review was of much value TO the
jurors, being an intelligent summary of
the great mass presented for their con-
sheraton on a number of days. AT the
conclusion, Judge Speer continued, in part,
as follows:
You will perceive, gentlemen, that the
testimony on the part of the defendant is
in the main, either negative or circum-
stantial. In so far as mega tive testimony
is opposed to the testimony of witnesses,
who swear positively, the positive testi-
mony Is usually to be preferred if the
witnesses are credible; but the weight of
evidence and the credibility of witnesses
is entirely for the jury. In this connec-
ton / charge you that If the plaintiff or
any witness has sworn consciously and in
tentionally falsely to matter material to
the issue, it would be your duty TO dis
regard his testimony altogether A further
rule is that you should reconcile the testi-
mony of the witnesses, if you can, and i'm
pute perjury to no one, unless you are
obliged to do so.
Now take all of this evidence and CON
slider it in connection with the evidence of
these witnesses for the defendant not all
of whom I have enumerated for they all
agree in essential particulars, and see If
it is not possible to reconcile the testi-
mony of these witnesses on the one side
and on the other without imputing per-
jury to either. If you can it is your
duty to do so. It may be well for
you, gentlemen, to consider if
man who is testified TO be i'm high state
of physical health after receiving an in
jury may not be for sometime unconscious
of it's extent and consequences May it
not be true that in the mental elation
which comes to some men from associa-
ton with his fellows when all are in a
state of excitement and when the contin-
gency calls upon them all to demonstrate
the possession of manly qualities, that the
plaintiff may have done all of these ply
steal actions which he is said to have done
and yet at the time have been suffering
from an injury of which he was only par
TALLY conscious.
"If you find that Polhill was not physi-
cally injured by the collision there is an
end of the case and il is your duty to find
for the defendant. If you find that he did
sustain a physical injury, and if you also
find that Immediately and subsequently
! there ensued the series of Affections which
his declaration and his evidence describes,
and YOU believe from the evidence that
those Affections might be the natural
cause and reasonable consequences
of tie injury you find he sustained
then the burden of the proof is
on the defendant TO satisfy you
morally and reasonably that those Attic
tons did not result from the injury sus-
tanned in the collision. but from some 9TH
err cause for which the defendant is not
liable"
"The defendant company has produced
the testimony of several gentlemen skilled