Mexico Missouri message. (Mexico, Audrain County, Mo.) 1899-1918, 1900-03-15


no bearing whatever upon the only
two questions for the juror to de-
eide, viz: Was defendant respon-
Sible for the wreck, and if it was
to what extent was plaintiff injured
therein! Even if the jury believed
that eight men were killed i'm this
wreck such fact had no tendency
towards the establishment or dis
proof Of the the only two issues in
the case.
The paragraph contains, "a
coffin was bought for Copeland.
but he recovered" Even if Il
coffin was bought for him the Jury
knew that it was not needed and
that the person who ordered it was
mistaken in his opinion that he
was dead, and hence such state
mcnt could not be harmful in the
mind of any juror, to the right of
defendant.
THE second paragraph states
the trial last term resulted in
hung jury, that one of the jurors
was for nothing and hung to the
last, whilst one of the others was
for $2O, 900, two for Slj. 900 and
eight for 5000 This states no
facts in the case, but simply opin-
ions of former jurors upon the
facts as presented to them in that
trial as to the amount of his DANA
ges, if they had found for him. 1t
had no bearing whatever upon the
first question this jury must have
decided, to.wit: Shall the verdict
be for the plaintiff or defendant?
After the jury had settled this
question in favor of the plaintiff.
that he was entitled to some DANA
gcs, the question arose. How much!
If they had found $1.OO for
plaintiff then defendant could not
have asserted that the article
as to the quantum of damages bad
harmed it IN any view. But they
found $lj. 900 for plaintiff. Now
if defendant is wrongcd by that
amount of damages awarded against
it, it is because such finding is
excessive. If the finding is not
excessive and the defendant has
really suffered damages to that ex
tent, then no injury has or could
result to defendant from such find
ing, for the jury arrives at a cor
rect conclusion and formed a cor
rect estimate, notwithstanding the
opinions of former jurors. This
brings up the question, Is the YER
dict excessive! Altho thi, is Il
ground for motion for new
trial, yet it was not urged in the
argument, nor do | think it well
taken. In cases of this character.
i'll which physical injuries, pain
and suffering are to be measured
up by dollars and cents. and not
only the past and present condi-
ton of the plaintiff but also the
probabilities OF the future enter
into the estimate, there can be no
east iron rules, such as we would
apply on breach contract. but
much must be left to the sound.
every day common sense of the
jury, and III passing upon the
Judgment of the jury as to the
amount of the verdict, am free
to say | do not deem SD, 900 cx-
traVagant compensation to plaintiff |
for the injuries inflicted upon him.
The finding of the jury then be-
ing not excessive and in accord
with the facts of the case, it is a
matter of no moment that the
MESSAGE article was read by the
juror Crum. In accordance with |
the agreement of the parties on the
argument of this motion, Clerk, |
enter up an order overriding
the motion for new trial. Atlida- |
Wit of defendant filed for appeal. |
Appeal granted Bond i'm the sum
of $50, 900 filed and approved, (to |
be approved by the clerk Bill of |
exception to he filed ON or before
the 2nd day OF the next term of !
this court. All to be entered as of |
the last day of the January term"
Escape OF Counterfeit Dollars.