The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-03-07
PLAINTIFF ASKED $4,000
It Took the Jury Five Hours to Reach
a Conclusion.
JUDGE ALIENS CHARGE YESTERDAY
Messrs. Douglass ard Simms and Ryan Were
CourciI For Plaintiff While Messrs.
Battle and Mordecai Repre-
sented the Mill.

SeiIlcu utC UItHs
Last night the jury in the case of Miss
Matte Baker against the Raleigh Cotton
Mill returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff. and fixed the damages at $4,000.
The jury took the case at about half-past
five, and the verdict was announced at
1920.
The argument of counsel was conclud-
ed yesterday evening by Mr. S. G. Ryan
for the plaintiff. Judge Oliver H. Allen
Immediately delivered his charge to the
jury, and the case was in their hands.
Yesterday morning Mr. w. C. Douglass
concluded the argument he had begun on
Tuesday afternoon for the plaintiff. He
was followed by Mr. Robt. N. Simms, also
for Miss Baker. Then Mr.. Richard H.
Battle, for the defendant company, made
the sole argument for that side. He was
followed by Mr.. S. G. Ryan.
Miss Baker, who is now in her six
teenth year, claims $4,000 damages from
the Raleigh Cotton Mill for injuries re-
ceived in February of last year. She was
cleaning the gearing of one of the ma
SiihSo hlSh III H6f lett
hand was caught and mangled in the cog
wheels. AS result she lost one finger
and the use of another. She also claims
that her general health was impaired by
the nervous shock and mental distress
and anxiety.
Judge Allen, in his charge to the jury
stated that there were two issues to be
considered, besides the question of the
amount of damages; first, Was the plain
tiff injured by the negligence of the de-
PENDANT? The burden of proof in this issue
was upon the plaintiff, to show by the evil
dence that she was injured by the negli-
gence of the company. Here the plain
tiff's evidence must outweigh that of de-
PENDANT. The contention of plaintiff was
that. she, was ordered to clean the gear
ing without having proper knowledge or
experience while the mill was running
This was denied by defendant.
1T was the duty" continued Judge
Allen, ''of the defendant company to fur
nish its employees reasonably safe and
improved appliances and machinery with
which to work. Failure to do this would
be negligence. 1t is not required that
defendant use every modern Improvement,
or the latest, or the best known, but it
is entitled to choice, provided it keeps
within the rule of having reasonably safe
machinery. If you find that the boss re-
CURED plaintiff to clean off this gearing
while the wheels were in motion, and
further find that it was so dangerous to
do so that he showed a want of reason
able care, considering her age, intelli-
gence, etc, and in obeying such order
she was injured, there was negligence. L.
you find that he gave her no such orders,
but that she voluntarily proceeded to
clean off the gearing. your answer would
be. no..
III the plaintiff was inexperienced it
was the duty of the defendant to give such
caution and adequate information as they
reasonably could. If the injury resulted
from failure to do so, there would be
negligence. But if the company gave suf-
ficient information, through it's officers
and rules posted in conspicuous places,
defendant would not be negligent The
posting of the rules in itself would not
constitute a caution, but it would be evil
dence that caution was used. If the plain
tiff was fourteen or fifteen years of age,
and possessed of ordinary intelligence. it
would not be negligence per Sc for the
company to employ such girl.
''If your answer to this first question
is no.. there is a verdict; if your answer
is yes, you must then take up the next
issue, which is: Did the plaintiff con-
tribute to the injury by her own negli-
gence?
in this issue the burden of proof is
upon the defendant. 1t was the duty of
the plaintiff to use ordinary precautions
for her safety. Ii her injury was the re-
suit of her neglect of such duty, your
answer to the question should be YES
Plaintiff cannot recover if her injury is
the result of her own negligence. If you
find that she did work with reasonable
care, considering her age, experience and
intelligence, and yet was injured, the
answer would be no.
IF you answer the second issue by
yes after answering the first issue by
yes also, you will return verdict If
you answer the second question mo- af-
ter answering the first yes you will
proceed to the question of damages.
LAS to the matter of damages, you
undertake to give the present cash value
of the plaintiffs injuries. You do not
undertake to punish the defendant. You
can consider the probabilities of her
length of life. You can take into consid-
GRAFTON what her income would have BEEN
and whether her income is likely to con-
tinue in her present occupation, and you
can make reasonable allowance for men
tai suffering You do not undertake to
give an exact equivalent for finger, or
for the suffering. but you can make rea-
sonable allowance. You should guard
against allowing anything for sympathy.
Cases like this are liable to appeal to
our sympathies. but they should not en-
ter into a verdict
The next case to be tried at this term
OF court will be the suit of Richard
Virgins and his wife, Tince Virgins,
against the Raleigh and CASTOR Railroad
Mr.. N. Y. Gulley and Messrs Battle e.
Mosdecai represent the plaintiff. This
suit is one for 1000 damages on account
of injuries which the plaintiff received
July Sth, 1900. Tince Virgins bought a
ticket from Raleigh to Wake Forest and