The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1901-04-17
TEE spUcKsY CASE
Synopsis of Opinion of Supreme
Court

Brooks Stuckey, as administrator of
of Sarah Dixon. deceased, respondent vs.
the Atlantic Coast Line Railway company of
South Carolina, appeIlaot.-Pleadiog Re-
dundant matter W unded fee!isgs, grief
and sorrow as elements of damage.
This was an action for $50, 900 damages
alleged to have been suffered oy t5e children
of plaintiff intestate by reason OF her death
caused, IS alleged, oy the negligence of de-
fendant in violently running It's locomotive
and some cars backward against its cars 10
front Of its passenger coach wherein the de-
ceased vas seated aud awaiting the departure
of said coach, at Bishepville, for Bells
Crossing
The 5th paragraph of the complaint was
as foilows:
s-V. That plaintiff is Informed aud believes
that frous time to time for teo days before the
said collision at Bishopville on the said lst
dsy of October, 1898, 8 portion Of said train
Nto which the engine was attached bad been
negligen,iy and without due regard to the
aives snd safety of the passengers on said
train run against that portion of said eralo
TO which the passenger coach was attached
and the conductor of said train Of cars bad
0een warned oy passenger on said train. on
or about the 2lss day of September, 1898,
that unless more care were taken bv bis
engineer ic striking the said two portions OF
said train together, some passenger would De
eeriously iojured. Tnas Notwithstanding
eaid warning the portion of the train TO
which the engine was attached was run
agsisss the portion of the traio to which
ne passenger coach was attached on
said lst day of October, 1898, as above
referred to-
Before answering, the defendant moved
Judge B1chaoan for 40 order striking out
said 9th paragraph for irrelevancy and
sedundarey The motion was refused and
the defendant duly excepted
The answer, IN substance, embodied gen.
ersl denial.
The Jury found for ,he plaintiff $1,000,
and motion sos new trial vas refused by
the circuit court--Judge Tswnsend presiding.
The defendsnt appealed
The allegstioos in the fifth paragraph of
the complaint wers not irrelevant TO the,
case as nsSe by the complaint, for if true
they tended to show that the very thiog
which II vas alleged caused the injury con-
plaioed of IN the case had oeen called 10 the
sstention of the conductor but few days
before, as dangerous; and that notWithstand-
ing such warnipg, few days afterwards the
disaster complained of did occur from the
very sagas cause which the conductor had
been warosd was likely TO producs such
result
The allegations in said fifth paragraph OF
the complaint being pertinent 10 the issue,
evidence IN support OF such allegations was
competent.
Though the reasons given for rning be
ansound, yet if the ruling itself be correct it
must be sustained
Whers evidence shown to have been in-
competent is stricken out, its original admis-
sion is no exception
If ths trial Judge enormously admits certain
evidence, and yet explicitly charges the jary1
that such evidence must not be considered IN
making up their verdict, such admission con-
stiiu,es harmless error only.
The circuit Judge did not err in refusing to
charge The jury that they could Tot take iaso
consideration the wounded feelings of the
eene6ciaries, their grief aud sorrow, and in
ehargiog them that the jlry might take them
:uto consideration, If they foond there was
grief aud it produced an Injury. (Nobrdec
V. Railroad, 81 S. E. r 22s)
The court sees no reason for departing
from the view taken 10 Nohrden's case,
based as it is on tha express rerms Of the
sta,ute as construed IL the previous cases of
Petrie, S,rotber aud the other cases cited In
the case of Nohrden, which carried TO their
logical result the views presented in the pre-
cediog cases
Judgment below affirmed Opioios by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver Filed April 8.
Mesars J T. Barron, Pardy Z Reyrolds
for appellant; Messrs. Fraser & Cooper,
Thos Moormsn for respondent