The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-09-30

upon the question. must oifnn decline to IN
ttrterc In cases where i was his plain duty
% have granted the motion. Unless
trial courts can be aroused 10 a lrmsr q
srcise OF the powers aboys discussed, ~ may
be that conservative legislation Comforting
uron these courts (os civil nppesls) broadeI
ting aside unjust verdicta. will De advisable. y
These views OF an able Judge whp wns
OF necessity close observer Of the ten
dencea Of the litigation OF this State. and
whceo position placed him above The sus-
picion OK having his opinions coiorcd By
che interests o. a private clieptage, are
are peculiarly applicable to personal injury
eases against railroads, because OF tho we'll
known tendencies Of turies, FOR reasons
presently TO be touched upon. to md In
favor OF plaintiffs In such sultA
The language used BY Judge Dennan APP
plies with especial force TO those vsrdicts
constantly increasing in number and amount
which are so clearly and manifestly exoes-
siVo as TO bear every indicia OF pass on and
prejudice, Excessive verddcts are not pocu-
liar to Texas. but the reported cases In
dicato that greater number OF such YER
diets, while not approved. are still undis-
turbci by the trial courts and affirmed by
perhaps OF any other Jurisdiction. The tan
dency seems 70 be to give to the jury UNI
brdled license In determining what aulDuns
plaintiff in a personal injury or death
case shall recover Not many years ago .
verdict OF $40 900 in this GLASS Of cases was
most unusual. No longer ago than 1875 tho
supreme court OF Illinois. IN cemmentins
upon and In reversing verdict for $4,000
In plaintiffs favor. SAID:
Ten thousand dollars Is q very largo
sum OF money. in tho possession of which
very few can boast II Is small fortune,
which few acquire in q lifeline OF neessant
labor. This the Jury awarded to one whose
prospects In lie do not extend beyond his
wages as day laborer. and VINO has not
wholly disabled. II Is true the company was
ut fault. but not 50 greatly as 10 aggravats
Was al, w ,he iurS vers SustIasd In award.
ing under the evidence A verdict Tor $4,000
Is enormous a. TO Justify the tnferencs
that tho Jury was actuated BY prejudice and
passion. not listening to the dictates OF cool
Judgment"
Some OF our courts of civil appeals have.
during the last year. affirmed many judy
ments much larger In amount whore the
evidence Of damage WAS not stronger In
plaintiffs favor than was that 10 the Illinois
case here referred to- In Difference to the
verdict OF tho Jury and tho approval purely
| theoretically of the district Judge. we ind
the verdict IL not excessive" has como TO
be haekneyed phrase In Affirming the opin-
ions of the courts Of civil appeals N cases
where 1t Ia apparent. from the entire con-
| text of rho opinion, that 1t shocks tho judi
Cial conscience TO place the stamp Of ap-
utoval upon the verdict In question.
Another--to me. failacous---theory recent
" sought TO be engrafted on the laws of
our courts Is that verdict confessedly ir-
| epced by passion and prejudice, and con-
fessedly excessive In amount. can be purgel
OF these vices by remilutur. IN reaching
| this conclusion. our courts have evidently
overlooked the obvious fact that tho vice
OF passion and prejudice found 10 exist nee
essarily permeates the entire verdict. poison
ing the finding on every issue. aud not
alore affecting the issue OF the extcnt Of tho
damages sustained. Under this ialse theory
IL has been sought In number Of instances
to deprive railroad compaoies OF fair
| trial on the whole case before an impartial
jury and they have been obliged to con
tent themselves with tho SOP OF a remittitur
thrown thcnl out OF tho abundance Of excess
which plaintiffs counsel has seen ut TO ask
| at the hands OF . eonfessedly prejudiced
Jury. This is not only unjust. but It oper-
ates 70 deprive the railroads of valued
right bestowed by law, and tends TO encour-
axe, rather than to discount snance the Gre
| alton OF prejudice against railroad interests
for purely business purposes, as well as to
excite appeals TO the passions. rather than
to the reasons and inteliects OF sworn jurors.
Another feature In The prAcuea admins
trauon OF the law IN rhis state. which
initiates against railroad company OBJ
tanning a fair trial In this class OF cases.
Is the manner in which the Jurors that
actually try these cases nre solected. The
theory OF our law. that jurors should be
selected BY jury commissioners appointed
by tho trial judge, Is understandable, pro-
ylded the trial Judge selects his commits
raopers with tho view OF Obtaining far. IN
teligent and unbiased Jurors and gives
. | them proper ana POSITIVE " tliht
end. 1t too often happens, however, that
the trial Judge selects some local politicians
as Jury commissions and turns them loose
to select whom they please without any or
with very pertunctory lnsruchons ana
? these commissioners In turn frequently SCI
lect professional jurors who actually impor-
tune them To be placed on tho Jury list. me
|, work OF the commissioners Is often basuiy
and loosely done. the principal object boz
ing to select tho requisite number OF names
and ret through. AS result; wnen the
jury for the week 10 empansiled " nearly
always happens that large per cent or
those summoned are disqualified or exempt,
and IL then devolves upon tho sherin 70
r summon talesmen, We all Know tnat , TINS,
~ summoned to nil out tho panel. In this
manner. the flood tides OF local poliblcs
! often fill tho Jury boxes with tho r1nran o.
: our citizenship. which no two Intelligent
business men with honest differences between
> them would voluntarily select TO SIT Ia
Judgment their cause. In cases AGAINST
: railroad companies the minds OF these jurors
! are often made up before they enter ths
: jury box. Many OF them have themselves
! had claims against. or have lost positions
with. railroad companies and their prelu-
: dioes arc as deeply rooted as their intelh-
gence Is dwarfod. The farce OF trying con-
> trovertod issues OF fact before jury COM
a posed OF this clasa OF men. IL illustrated BIZ
: the reply recently made by distinguished
! member OF tho bar OF this State. who. willis
! making his closing address TO the Nry IN
behalf Of plaintiff was ,n.e,rup.ea ny ts e
. his statement concerning the CONSTRUCTION OF
: a switnhstand claimed ohaye been de-
. fectiye was incorrect, and that In order 6
. settle beyond dispute the question REFERRED
. 10. IL the defendants counsel was given hai'
:. an hours time. he would have the switch
4 stand brought bodily into court; wnen this
y distinguished advocate. turning 10 the jury
. replied I'VE don't care anything about TINS
switchstand. We are not suing for tins
!, agtohstand. What We want is money
: money" and the jury after being out about
! ave minutes returned verdict In plaintin'
!. | fayor FOR 10000. BY their General finding
y Under The charge OF tho court, they de-
j.. dared the switchstand defective. yet ven
y ture the assertion that not one OF thess
u Jurors in their retirement considered VIVA
! tho condition Of ths switcnstand actuaiD
n was . :.
4 | partiyely easy matter on very. slight eyi
I, | dence. fortified by stereotyped speech nu
: | emily delivered, 10 obtain verdicts as larg'
: | nd they arc unjust There Is no need io
y grandiioquent oratory in civil GASES OF tn.
a character where the Issues are OF a purel,
/. business nature. the damages sought to D
y recovered purely compensatory; and the tso
Il that strong appeals are made 20 the SYM
pathies. preiudices and passions OF thu
"A Jurors. rather than 10 thor intelligence
q | and that such appeals. as rule. are tacitil
" sanotiousd in that they go unrebuked
. sironRlv indicate that cur courts are bein,
Ia constantly used as tools Tor the accom-
|. plishment OF Injustice rather than justice
!, ri ese are matters that can and should b