The evening Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1902-1902, 1902-06-10
WINKLER GETS
$4,000 DAMAGES.

George E, Winkler. was awarded
$4,000 damages against the 2. q K.
Railroad Company by jury IN the
Superior Courtyesterday afternoon.
Before the verdict was reached the
court made some important and far
reaching interpretations of the in
ner-state commerce law, upholding
the contentious of VIM. S. Hilles,
counsel for Winkler.
Levi C. Bird, who with Andrew
E. Sanborn defended the the suit,
thinks the award of So, 666. 66 for a
finger is excessive, and he made ap-
plication for new trial of the case.
1t was a busy day in court, three
juries being out at the same time In
the afternoon. The panel was ex-
hausted and talesman had to be sum
moned by Sheriff Mcdaniel, two
newspaper reporters being included
in the jurors drawn.
The change of the Court in the
Winkler case was read by Judge
Grubb and points that are of great
legal interest to railroads through
out the country were passed on.
Winkler was injured while coup
ling freight car to the tender OF
locomotive that was equipped with
a bull nose coupler, Mr. Hilles con-
tending that the use of any other
coupler than an automatic device is
contrary to the interstate traffic
law. He also argued that the ten
der of the engine is car within
the meaning Of the law.
For the defense Mr.. Bird and Mr.
Sanborn argued that as the loco
motive had not been out of the state
of Delaware in IA years it was not
effected by the law, as it was not
engaged in Interstate traffic. lie
also denied that tender is a car.
Judge Grubb in his charge said:
''If the tender and the car were
in use in moving local traffic only,
from point to point within the linz
it's of the state, they would be en-
gagged in Interstate commerce. If,
however, the car being moved had
come from point out of the state,
with freight to be here delivered,
and was then and there
in coul Sc of delivery, it would be
moving interstate commerce. This
would be SO even though the car to
which the tender was being coupled
was not the car used in the inter-
state traffic; if the removal Of such
car was necessary step in getting
at and moving said inter state car.
Should you be satisfied that the
the tender was so engaged in NOV
ing Interstate commerce, You must
be further satisfied from the evil
dence that it was not equipped with
automatic couDlers.
We may say to you that the
tender of a locomotive engine, en-
gagged interstate commerce, is a car
within the scope of the act of Cong
ress, which uses the general terms,
locomotive, car or train. A tender
is defined to car by Webster. The
tender is not locomotive engine OF
componenent part thereof, but the
small car carrying water and fuel
for the engine, and to which the
first passenger or freight car Of the
train is usually coupled. This inter
pretation comes not only within the
language of the act of Congress, but
is especially within it's scope, which
is to promote the safety of employees
and travellers upon railroads.
Should you find that the tender
at the time of the accident was
equipped with automatic couplers,
but that it was SO connected
with the bull nose coupler
that the coupling with other cars
was not made automatically by inn
pact, but wass so equipped tbatit was
necessary for men to go between
the ends of the cars to couple and
uncouple, then such coupling did
not comply with the act of Con-
gress and was unlawful
The jury deliberated about two
hours before arriving at its conclu.
sion to award $4,000 damages. If the
application Of Mr.. Bird for a new
trial is denied the case will proba-
bly, be carried to the Supreme Court
of the state, or perhaps higher.
Thomas j. Smith, was awarded
1000 damages against George W.
Phillips for assault and battery.
Philips was not in court, nor was he
represented by counsel. Smith was
represented by his brothers. Martin
L. Smith and Artemus Smith,
The case Of Max Abramson, vs..
Steve FIinn was next put on trial.
John Finn represented Abramscn
and Charles f. Carley was counsel
for Finn. Abra.nson claimed SIG
due as a balance on a $25 suit bought
Finn claimed he had paid II, and
that the suit was not worth S25. He
said he got the suit in a lottery
policy plan. The jury awarded Alb.
ramson $l4.