Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1900-04-25
CIRCUIT COURT.

Aldrlch, the work OF the court OF COLL
mon pleas has been cut considerably
shorter than was indicated by the
length of the calendar.
Calendar l was called last Saturday,
and with the consent of attorneys on
both sides all cases were continued ex-
cept the case of Rev. R. D. Perry vs..
the G. G. & N. Railroad company.
This case would have been continued
also had not Major Hart, of counsel
for plaintiff, represented that plaintiff
is lying at the point of death with
small probability that he will live un-
til the fall term Of the court.
Upon the call of the clerk Monday
morning, the second week jurors an
swered to their names as follows: w.
H. Stewart, T. w. Clawson, R. H. Pea
cock, J. M. Williford, w. o. Harsbaw,
J. R. Howe, w. p. Draffin, ]. N. Steele,
w. M. White, J. c. Blair, S. M. Roach,
w. T. Massey, NJ. L. Thomasson, D.
S. Russell, R. A. Clinton, ]. K. Scog-
gins, Dave Sims, w. w. Gregg, ]. N.
McGill, J. D. Boyd, J. H. Wylie, h.
M. Pursley, P. B. Love, II. NJ. Whiso.
nant, J. D. Smith, w. H. Chambers,
N. B. Campbell, w. A Oates, ]. D.
Clark, J. c. Wylie, w. T. Allen, w.
E. Adams, Jr.
Jury No. l was organized as fol-.
lows: J. H. Wylie, R. A. Clinton, j.
K. Scoggins, J. N. Steele, ]. D. Boyd,
N. B. Campbell, J. D. Smith, David
Sims, M. l.. Thomasson, ]. M. Will
ford, T. M. Whisonant.
All the other jurors were discharged
from further service at this term, and
as the witnesses in the Perry case had
not yet arrived, court was adjourned
until Tuesday morning.
The trains of Monday brought a
large number of witnesses from Cataw-
ba Junction and different points along
the Seaboard Air Line, and when
court convened yesterday morning
both sides were ready to proceed.
Messrs. james F. & John R. Hart, OF
Yorkyille, and Messrs. Johnstone &
Welch, of Newberry, appeared for the
plaintiff, and Messrs. J. l.. Glenn, OF
Chester, and w. B. McCaw, Of York
Vile, appeared for the defendant.
The complaint alleges as the princi
pal cause of action that while the
plaintiff was riding on one of the de-
fendant's trains on November Is, 1898,
he sustained, through the negligence
and carelessness of the defendant, such
serious spinal and other injuries as to
incapacitate him from making living
as minister of the gospel, etc. The
manner in which the defendant is al
legged to have inflicted the alleged in
juries is, of course, set forth in full de-
tail. The answer sets forth that the
train on which the plaintiff alleges he
was injured was not a regular passen'
ger train that the plaintiff was fully
aware of the accommodations he could
expect; that at the time he alleges he
was injured he was not occupying one
of the permanent seats intended for
passengers but chair that was not
fastened to the floor of the car; that
if he was injured, as he alleges, he was
guilty of contributory negligence and
that the railroad is not responsible.
The preliminary skirmish yesterday
morning, was on a motion by defen-
dant- to strike out from the complaint
one of the paragraphs setting forth
in effect that the plaintiff is minister
of the gospel, dependent upon his Ia
bors in that vocation for the support of
himself and invalid wife and minor
children, one of which is an invalid.
Mr.. Glenn argued that as the action
was for compensatory damages, the
number and condition of the members
of the plaintiff g family had nothing
to do with the issues involved. If the
plaintiff were entitled to recover at
all, he was entitled to recover as much
as single man with no one dependant
upon him, as he would be with a large
family. Mr.. Johnstone held that mas.
much as the defendant had elected to
object to the whole paragraph and not
a part, that if the objection were sus-
tanned it would have to be sustained
as a whole. Then he proceeded to
show that the plaintiff was asking for
damages on his own personal account
because he having been deprived by
the railroad company of his ability to
pursue his vocation as a minister of
The gospel, had thus been prevented
from further supporting himself. MIR.
Johnstone went on to argue the rele-
vancy of the balance of the paragraph.
His honor overruled the defendants
objection to the pa ragraph in question
on the ground laid down by Mr.. john
stone, viz: That under the objection,
the paragraph must stand or fall as
whole, and as portion of it was clear
ly relevant and material it would all
have to stand.