The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1900-09-08
rnERE'LL ma 4 NEW TRIAL.
Judge Norwood Granted one In the
Dnmnge snit Of neheern Wells.


Damage suit Of Rebecra wells.
Judge Norwood rendered a decision in
the city Court yesterday granting the
motion for new trial made by counsel
for the defendant in the case OF Rebecca
Wells against the Brush Electric Light
and Power Company. The decision re-
cites that the motion II granted. there
being no objection made by the respond
emit"
In this shape the decision OF Judge Nor
wood viii scarcely prove acceptable and
pleasing 20 counsel for the defendant.
returned a verdict for si7s0, considerably
less than the amount allowed the plaintiff
by The verdict OF previous juries, She
sues for the homicide OF her husband.
who was q llneman for the defendant
company and was killed by the passage
OF an electric current through his body.
white he was in the discharge of his duty.
when the Defendants counsel made
thcir motion for new trial. now some
weeks since. Judge Twiggs. of counsel for
the rIaintim. rose Ia his place and
stated that he would interpose no objee-
zion TO the grant Of the motion-that ne
too. was convinced that the verdict was
contrary 10 the evidence. This conviction
q counsel. however, was based on a DIFF
ferent theory than that OF the defendant.
The latter theory was that the plaintim
could not recover because there had been
no negligence shown on the part OF the
company. the former theory OF the in
correctness Of the verdict was that II the
plaintin was entitled to recover at all
she was entitled 20 recover the value Of
her husbands nfo. which had been shown
10 be more than Sl550.
Counsel for the defendant did not care
20 have the court grant their motion for
a new trial merely because counsel for
the plaintiff assented 90 Il. but wished
Judge Norwood 20 grant Il or overrule Il
on The grounds set out In g. Briefly these
were that Judge Norwood had erred
gt4avouslY In his charge 20 the jury. both
IN giving in charge principles OF law that
were either incorrect In themselves or IN
applicable 10 the points at issue In the
case. or IN refusing Ia give ~ charge
nrinciples Of law that were correctly stat
"a. pertinent 20 the issue. and which he
had been requested to charge specifically
ana in writing. The further ground OF
motion for n new Trial was alleged 10
consist IN Judge Norwood's refusal TO
rant 4 non-suit. which he had been asked
IA declare at the conclusion OF the intro
auction Of evidence for the plaintiff.
I, 81 the contention of the defendant that
inc court should have ruled positively
upon the points Of law a, issue, and II
~ stlu held 10 his belief IN che correct
,,esa ~ the principles he had given IN
charge 20 the jury. that he should nave
!, err,,lea the motion. and 20 permitted The
y.,s,. 81 be carried 10 the Supreme Court
vhan this matter could have been deter
M, 81 Iudge Norwood believed, on the
other hand. that Il WAS altogether within
tha legal proprieties for him to grant me
motion by consent ana witaous reference
10 the weight OF the grounds set out.
The homicide for which the action has
b.an brought occurred ~ lss6 ana the
suit was Instituted comparatively som
hereafter. Since then y has been tried
several times and has made two trips 10
INC supreme Court. The plaiut!f e rep
resented by Aessrs Twiggs & oliver.
,ri ~ defendant hy Aiessrs. saussy a
saussy and A. c. Wright.