The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-04-27
A DAMAGE SUIT DAY
Hicks Gets $50 From the
Street Car Company.
The Civ Of Raleigh Receivers So, 1000 ard Cost
From The Southern Railway For The
Dillon Damage Suit.

Yesterday was a sort of damage suit
case day in the Superior court,
After being out day and a night the
jury in the case of Hicks VS.. Raleigh
Electric Company, brought in a verdict
awarding $50 damages TO plaintiff for in
jures sustained in being put OFF one of
defendants street ears.
The case of City Of Raleigh rs. South
ern Railway TO recover $4,000 damages
paid by the city to Miss Hattie Dillon
for the injuries received ut the South
street crossing was argued on agreed
facts and decided in favor of the city for
the $4,000 and costs. The question OF
attorneys fees has not yet been deoi-
ded
The case of DIR, ]. "A. Sexton vs.. julius
Lewis, for $4,000 damages, alleged to have
been sustained from the bad condition Of
the North Carolina Car Company property
in this city, which the plaintiff leased
from the defendant, was commenced but
not completed. 1t will be resumed this
morning
In the case of p. b. Griffis VS.. Gideon
Philips. and wife, to recover land in St.
Marys township, sold by Griffis to Phil
FPS hut never paid for judgment was
given in favor of Griffs to the amount
of So 1oS.90-which is the purchase price
{$2.s00l and interest thereon-and the land
was ordered sold on the first Monday in
June at the court house door.
The suit of b. c. Glover. administrator,
VS.. Wilmington and Weldon Railroad was
decided for the railroad and Glover taxed
with the costs, as he did not appear and
prosecute his case,
Though the amount of damage awarded
Is small, the outcome Of the Hicks suit
Is very unsatisfactory to the street car
people. They say it will, if upheld, break
up their transfer system. The transfer
they give is in the nature of a contract,
and calls for continuous passage, that
is to say the holder of it must take the
next car leaving the point of transfer.
In Hicks case this was not done, but
Hicks alleged in his defense that he failed
to do so because the car was crowded
and he could not get on it, and he waited
for the next one And ii was on this
point-the failure of the street ear COM
Qany to keep its part of the contract by
providing aeeommodations-that the case
was won.
The issues submitted to the jury and
the answers given are as follows:
l. Did the defendant wrongfully eject
the plaintiff from one Of the defendant
street railway cars on the 25th day OF
0ctober, 1898? Answer: Yes.
2 Did the defendant use undue and
excessive violence in the manner OF
eieeting the plaintiff from the car? An
swer: No
3. What amount of damage is the plain
tiff entitled to recover? Answer: Physi-
cal and punitive damages, None; Actual
damages. $50
The jury came in twice: the first time
they answered the second question: Yes,
simply because we believe that he lad no
right to bother him at all
They answered the third question by
giving the plaintiff $500 damages.
Thereupon Judge Starbuck inquired how
this amount had been arrived at and was
told that amcng other things considered
YVES the statement in the answer that
the defendant was trying to beat the
street car company out Of a ride, etc
This the Judge told the jury could not
be taken into consideration aud they re-
tired again and soon thereafter brought
in verdict as above set forth.
Mr. w c. Douglass, attorney for the
plaintiff, moved to set aside the verdict.
and Judge Starbuck said that he would
entertain that motion later. Mr.. Douglas
stated after court that he had a strong
case and would appeal unless he got
more than the $50 awarded by the jury.