Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-05-17
AGAINST THE CITY.
HARDWOOD BROTHERS WIN THEIR
SUIT FOR $500 DAMAGES.
THIS WAS A TEST CASH.
other Actions May Follow NJ N Re-
.uIt of the Breaking of the sewer
u,dcr the GnIIego-M iIis-verdic
for Mrs. Atkinson.

The case Of HarwOod Brothers against
tho city OF Richmond. which has been on
trial in the Law and Equity Court for the
past five days, was decided yesterday
evening In favor Of the plaintlns. INC
suit was for 500, and the verdict AWARDED
the plaintiffs sos and costs. motion 10
set the verdict aside. as contrary 10 tile
law and evidence, was overtu'ed' anu INC
verdict being for less than 500 there can
be no appeal.
Tho case is interesting. mainly because
II was designed to test the hapiilty VI
the city for tho collapse OF the OLD s'one
sewer back Of the Gallego Mis- 10y ''io
breaking of this culvert no little damage
WAC done TO the mill and the property On
Cary street between Eleventh and Iwe'lln
streets.
,,ho ,,ardic, In this action will lead to
Tho institution of several suits against
the CITY unless a compromise is redcheu,
and counsel who have been retained ny
various firms that claim TO nave peei
damaged by the overflow were preSeh'
during the trial of the case. A..
Citv.Attorney Pollard represented inc
oitv and ex-City-Attorney Meredith the
nlaintiffs in the above SUIT Inc d -"
nerts were particularly fine on both slnes'
and those who heard them say thd' 'i.o
case OF the city could not have peer p,'-
ter handled than II was by MI ',.',,,os
The Jury was only out twenty minutes,
ond ,I. verdict was reached upon the
first ballot ~
u'DGE LANES INSTRCCIlO>".
Judge Lambs instructions 70 me s Jd,
give very clear indication OF Doth Si'''
% Tho case. They were as folloWs' ..-,
VI t'e .,,bo,,oh tho fury may believe from
49, a,.idence that the old sewer OF culN'd
witch hogan at or near thS So' .ha,ca
Eleventh and Cary streets ana ia III, and
snnthwardly under the basin Ian IN, mo
towards the river WA Nv n a private person
a. ~ ycornoration and was built over aLtfrh
nina, stream or natural cHnnn'' The
originally drained that seCt,1n Ia1ieve
oi,t,. vet IL The jury shall further DslttNs
en-, ',be evidence that the Guy, setiIs
thrn,gb its Common Council, adopteu 'ne
soid sever or culVert az part OF ilS
system of sewers In that secuon VI w
CITY and subsequently permitted II 20 ~
800 broken and out of repair, ana WIN
,,1nN.ladCa of that fact permitted II 10
remain in that condition; and II the July
shall further believe from the eVlueuSe
that the damage of when tne P',e el,,ead
complain in their declaration was cAus ' "a
nv
sewer or culvert, then the jury are IL
structed that they must find for the
plaintiffs e. irstrncted that
II is not necessary that the Clty Iooh ~, u
should declare by express resolution us
intention to adopt the said sewer or cul-
vert. euch intention may he inferred FROM
actions of the Council with reletence "
said sewer or culvert, showing such lh'e"-
ton to adopt it. .-.-,o,o, .bot
II they believe from the evidence that me
city had adopted the said sewer IN tne
manner stated in the two preceding m
structions and If they further peleNe nc
the said sewer or culvert W was ~ c, - had
tive condition, and that the Guy ndu
knowledge of that fact. ana II they lul .
Their believe that the flume or race"aY dt
the Gallcgo Mills, or the emDahkiheiit "
tween the mills and the basin was dIsO AZ az
q defective or leaky condition. ana II
they further believe that the collapse OF
the embankment and the consequent
flooding of the plaintiffs cellar were
caused in part by the defective cohultlou
of the fume or the embankment. ana III
mart by the defective condition or the
| sewer. vet they must find Tor the
nlaintiff. unless they believe from INC
| evidence that the defective condItoa 81
| the sewer did not contribute i ndterIdiiS
! i'm causing the embankment to collapse.
4 The jury are further instructed mat
| the burden Of proof Is upon the plaintiffs,
! and that in order to recover they must
| establish their case in all us essential
| parts by a preponderance of evidence.
THE CAVEDO ISLANDER SUIT.
| In the City Circuit Court judgment was
| rendered for S2i7i0 in the suit of CHRIS
| tan & Wintree Company against T.
| Belli - &c.
subsequently the case Of John f. cave
! do. Jr. against Mrs. a. ID. Atkinson. OF
| the Lexington Hotel. was tried before
! Judge Wexford and jury. The suit was
! for $4,000. damages for defamation OF
| character The jury returned verdict,
| and Judgment was entered for the de-
! PENDANT 70 the amount of the costs OF the
| su..
| Samuel Davenport (coboredD was charged
! I'm The Hastings Court with malicious as
| sault. As it appeared from the testimony
! OF DR.. Gordon, the surgeon or the JAZZ
| that he is insane. nolle pPosegul was
| entered. and Davenport will be sent to a
! lunatic asylum. , in,
| Charles Beale who was charged with
| malicious assault. had his case laid over
| until The June term, and gave 500 bali
! for his appearance.
! Commonwealth h s-AttOrney ID. G.. Rich
ardson was out Of the city yesterday on
| business He was well represented by
| Mr.. Harry c. Glenn, who acted for him
in the above cases.