Evening journal., 1899-11-20
Mr.. HIGGINS
WINS HIS POINT
Judge Bradford Allows Him to
Amend His Bill in the
Springer Case.
NoN-sUIT WAS ASKED FOR

d NIL bihD ltllo adOtNNlNN YIN
THE GROUND OF GROSS CON
TRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ~ THE
PLAINTIFF RESTS THE CASE.
In the United States Court this morn
ing Judge Bradford decided to allow
ex-Senator Higgins, representing the
plaintff in the case of Springer vs.. the
B. & o. Railroad Company, to amend
his bill of complaint.
On Friday afternoon last Mr.. Higgins
desired to introduce evidence showing
what would have been the value of the
dead boys services from the time OF
his death until he was twenty-one
years of age, with an idea to assess.
ing damages.
Mr.. Bird, however. objected to the
| introduction of such evidence on the
| ground that the plaintiff could not re-
cord such damages because nothing
| concerning services was contained in
the narr. All Saturday was consumed
in arguments on the point and numer-
GUS authorities were cited Judge Brad
ford this morning decided the question
and allowed Mr. Higgins to amend his
/
what he wanted damages for
After the decision OF the court had
been handed down, Mr. Higgins called
John II. Springer. the father of the
boy killed. to the stand and questioned
him relative to the value of the boys
services. The witness stated that his
son was Of great value to him. That
he went to school during the day but
at nights helped him with his milk
business. He had never paid him for
his services. only giving him some
change on Saturday night. Between
the age of 13 and Is years he consid-
cred his boys services over and above
the cost of living, worth 81 per week.
From Is to II years of age, they were
I worth So a week easily, and from II
until he was q years of age, S. per
week would have been a fair estimate
for his sons services, a total of about
4 81 $50 lost to him in the services of his
son from the time Of his death until
he was p years of age.
Mr.. Springer identified a bill Of I'm.
dertaker w. n. Fairlamb, which he had
paid for his sons funeral expenses
The witness testified that the value Of
the horse killed at the time of the acci
dent was 500, and that the damage L
the wagon and harness was $35 and 81
respectively.
AGAINST THE COMPANY.
William Green was recalled and
stated that 1t was not customary for
trains either to blow a whistle or ring
( the bell upon approaching the cross
) ing.
] did you ever know trains to blow a
2 whistle at that crosesing? queried Mr.
e. Bird. on cross-eXamination.
Yes. sir, ] did, replied the witness
What occasion was it,"
{ well. it's against the company, Mr.
p, Bird" said Green, do you want me t,
tell it?"
S This created a laugh in the court
- room, as Mr.. Bird said; GO ahead tel
j il. l don't care whether it's against thi
/ company or not"
Witness then stated that on one oc
? casion his father. so years of age, wa
4 driving across the tracks at the Ian
j where the Springer accident occurred
+ He was coming from the opposite di
n rection from that in which Syringe
o was driving. He had the reins tied t
!, the seat of the wagon, although he hel
k them in his hands. He could not Sc
e am approaching train, and just as b
IS got on the tracks a train came alon
g and cut the head of his horse CON
o pletely off and laid its heart open. Hi
Il father was thrown from the wagon b
d the shock. THE engine whistled whe
: it struck the team" continued the wit
z ness"
1t "That will do. Mr.. Green" said Nj
II Bird.
ie ASKS FOR NON-SUIT.
u The plaintiff closed at this point an
% Mr.. Bird at once moved for non-sui
: on the ground of gross contributor
T. negligence on the part of the dead bo
4 claiming that he had ample time to g
~ across the tracks and that had he lOOl
y ed in the right direction could hay
W seen the approaching train. Argumen
le on the point were being heard up to Il
81 time the court took a recess, at
o'clock