The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-06-09
TO GO TO THE JURY TO-DAY.
THE PRINCE CASE FINISHED IT'S
THIRD DAY.


Adams Defended His Client ard
stated That His ReputntiO Placed
Him Above such Conduct as Was
Imputed 10 Him by MIR. Osborne.
Judge Norwood 10 Deliver His
Charge This Morning.
The case of Prince against the savan-
nah. Thunderbolt and Isle of Hope Rail-
way finished its third day in the City
Court last night. Mr.. 5. b. Adams con-
eluded his argument for The plaintiff
shortly before O'Clock. and Judge Nor
wood dismissed the jury until 9 O'Clock
this morning, when he VIII deliver his
charge.
This is one of the hardest fought legal
battles that has taken place in the City
Court in some time, and much interest
has been aroused. Both sides have been
ably represented and the attorneys have
devoted their best abilities TO the inter
ests of their clients. The fact that Mr..
Prince had probably suffered more serious
injury than any living victim of trolley
car accident in Savannah, together with
the fact that it was a mooted question as
TO where the blame properly belonged. OPP
posite statements of the manner in which
the accident occurred having been cur
rent since the day Of the accident more
than a year ago. combined to give inter-
est to the case. The case is one in which
the bicycllsts are especially interested,
as the accident was one liable to occur 10
any bicychst on account of the numerous
crossings of the streets and roads by the
car lines.
So far no new features in law bearing
on such cases have been brought out. The
broad common sense view of the duty
of the individual to exercise ordinary care
and diligence for his own safety and of
the railway company to exercise eXtraor-
binary care and diligence for the proven
ton of accidents has been adhered to by
both sides. The accident occurred on
public highway on which both parties
had their rights. and the question
throughout has been one of fact rather
than law the fact which it will be the
duty of the jury TO ascertain being
whether il was the negligence of the
plaintiff or the defendant which caused
the accident.
The testimony of the witnesses for both
sides has differed very materially on this
point and the Jury is likely to have some
difficulty in determining what evidence it
VIII accept and what IL will reject.
Mr.. Prince was placed upon the stand
again yesterday morning by his counsel
in rebuttal Of the testimony of witnesses
introduced by the defense and also for the
purpose of showing that his testimony on
the two previous occasions on which he
had been on che stand was consistent.
After the testimony was all in and Judge
Norwood had announced that he would al
low the counsel on each side two hours
in which to present their views, Mr. Bar
row stated that he had a request TO make
of the court
my request is in the interest of truth
and justice" said Mr.. Barrow at is that
the court shall let the jury go out to the
point on the line of the road where the
accident occurred in the charge OF a
deputy sheriff. Then let a car be run
from the direction in which the car was
running when the accident occurred and
let the jury Judge for themselves whether
man from the point where Mr.. Prince
says he was i'm five feet of the north rail
could see q car approaching and at what
distance he could see Il. Let the car be
run past the point Just as many times
as the jurymen may wish. Then they
won't have to take anybody's word as TO
how far Mr. Prince could see a car an
preaching from the point at which he sta,
lions himself in his testimony Let them
go uuaccompanied by counsel The mo-
torman and conductor. of course. will not
be the ones who have been witnesses in
this case"
why not let the counsel go, too" sug-
gested Mr.. Osborne.
IAN right let the counsel on both Sides
accompany the jury" said Mr. Barrow.
can we take bicycle?" inquired Juror
Hunter.
Certainly" replied Mr.. Barrow; make
any experiment you please"
Someof the jurymen looked as if they an
proved OF this suggestion. but Mr. Adams
entered a very positive objection.
1.-THE jury has already visited the scene. -
said Mr.. Adams. "and the jurymen have
doubtless pretty well defined ideas as 10
how the accident occurred. There is no
reason why they should go out there again
and let the railroad people experiment for
them. The matter at issue is not a ques-
tion of exact measurement but of COM
mon sense"
Mr.. Barrow urged his suggestion. 1.-THE
testimony is conflicting" he said LET
the jurymen so out and ascertain fol
themselves how far they can see and hear
an approaching car
Mr.. Adams declined to consent to this
however, and as the court could moi
grant tue request without tne mQTuai con
sent of counsel the jury did not get the op-
portunity of making a second visit to the
scene of the accident.
Mr.. Stubs opened for the plaintiff anC
spoke about half an hour, stating IN,
view of the law taken by counsel foi
plaintiff, as wen as their view of the facts
and the result which should be reached b,
the jury
Mr.. Osborne began speaking at 1:S
o'clock and spoke until o'clock, resuminl
at $3.50 o'clock and speaking am hour long
er. Owing to the fact that Mr.. Osborne
had occupied a portion of his associate,
time, MIR. Barrow's time was extended
with the understanding that Mr. Adams
who had the conclusion, should not b,
limited
Mr. Osborne, in his opening remarks
paid his respects to Mr., .Prince. He de
MED that he had treated the plaintiff IL
any way rudely or discourteously wheI
the latter was on the stand. He charge,
that the plaintiffs confusion was not du,
10 the manner in which he had been ad
dressed by the speaker but to the fac
that his evidence had been so dlsingeniou