The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-03-11
NO GROUNDS FOR A VERDICT.
JUDGE NORWOOD DECLINED TO
REINsTATE THE READ CASE.

He Holds That There Was Not Sufii-
cient Evidence Upon which to
Base n Verdict and That This Be
ing the Case 1t Was His Duty as
Judge to Grant the Motion to Nom
Suit-Dr. Reads Case Dependent
Upon That of His Driver Lloyd and
the Latter's own Testimony Held
to Show That the Accident Was
Due TO His Lack of Care and Dill
gence.
Judge Norwood declined yesterday TO re-
instate the cases of DR.. james B. Read
and Edward S. Lloyd, which were thrown
out by him in the City Court last week,
on a motion to nonsuit.
DIR. Read and Lloyd sued the City and
Suburban Railway for $4,000 and $500
respectively, for damages received by
coming in contact with low hanging troll
ley wire in August, 1895. When the case
came up for trial a motion for a nonsuit
was entered by the attorneys for the rail-
way company, Messrs. Barrow & Osborne.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs, Messrs.
O'Connor, O'Byrne & Hartridge were TAX
en- by surprise, but strenuously opposed
the motion, which was nevertheless grant
ed by Judge Norwood.
They were confident, however, that on
a fuller presentation of their view of the
law, and the authorities bearing on the
case, that Judge Norwood would take
different view of the matter, and a motion
-. A
heard at some length on this motion, and
the court took the matter under consid-
Grafton for several days. His decision,
overruling the motion to reinstate, was
rendered yesterday morning.
The decision as a lengthy one, the prln-
ciples governing the privileges of demur-
rers and nonsuits being discussed at some
length. Judge Norwood holds that non
suit and a demurrer are identical in prin-
ciple, the only difference being that one
comes before the evidence has been sub
mitted and the other afterwards. Both say
that the plaintiff on his own showing has
no right TO a verdict.
The leading authorities cited by the at
torneys for the plaintiffs in support of
their motion to reinstate are discussed at
some length by Judge Norwood with the
conclusion that none of them apply exact
~ to the case at hand.
In support of his view as to the duty of
the judge to grant a nonsuit under GER
tain conditions Judge Norwood says:
Section 5347 of our code is as follows:
IF the plaintiff fails to make out prima
facie case, or, of admitting all the facts
proved and all reasonable deductions from
them the plaintiff ought not to recover,
a nonsuit will be granted.
"In Smith VS.. the Central Railroad and
Banking Company of Georgia, 50, Georgia
Report, S07, our Supreme Court, while de-
Gliding a case of nonsuit says: when it
would be impossible for a jury rightly to
arrive at but one conclusion, the court is
not bound to take the opinion of jury,
even upon question of negligence. When
they are consulted they are the sole and
exclusive judges, as has been held in many
cases. But this rule does not mean that
the court cannot adjudicate, as a uues-
ton of law of a motion for a nonsuit
that there is nothing for the jury to
try. In adjudicatng motions for nom
suit, court must necessarily have the
same power over questions of negligence
as over other questions of fact. Other
wise cases of this character would be so
exceptional that they would have to be
submitted to a jury, however deficient the
evidence might be. The Jaw of nonsuit as
to them. would be a nullitv"
1T thus appears" says Judge Norwood,
that it is the duty of every Judge in
Georgia to withhold every case from
jury where the plaintiff fails to make gu,
prima facie right to a verdict and the
defendant requests nonsuit"
After considering the leading cases cited
Judge Norwood says: ut thus appears,
if my analysis of those cases be correct.
that not one of them tallies with the case
of Lloyd"
Lloyd's evidence is quoted 10 show that
he was grossly negligent, and that. ac-
cording to his own testimony he failed
TO exercise the care which a man of ordi-
nary intelligence should have done. 1t is
held that DR.. Reads case is based upon
that of Lloyd, as he had entrusted himself
to the care of his driver, and was the
dependent upon the latter's care and dill
gence for his safety This testimony is
reviewed in detail. Judge Norwood's con-
eluson, as shown by reading of his de-
cision, is that there was not sufficient evi,
dence upon which to base a verdict for
Lloyd and this being the case, it was his
duty TO grant the motion for a nonsuit.
Judge Norwood says in conclusion. "T
granted the non-suit from the conviction
that the plaintiff did not use ordinary care
and, although the plaintiffs counsel have
exhibited great diligence in arraying au-
thorites, and have presented their con-
tenuon with marked ability, still. after
careful review of the cases, am stul
of the opinion that the plaintiff Lloyd was
too negligent to be entitled to go to
jury. / must therefore overrule the mo-
ton to reinstate the suits.'''
DIR. Reads attorneys will appeal from
Judge Norwood's ruling to the Supreme
Court
Supposed 10 BE SmaII-POx.