The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-04-25
IN THE JURY'S HANDS
Suit of King VS.. S. A. L.
Went to Jury at l:45.
Judge Aliens Charge Was Brief. to the Point,
and Emnentiy Just. Case Of Raleigh
Hosiery Co. VS.. S. Al.

uUScTy w. VS.. >. M L.
The King railroad case was in the
hands of the jury up to the time of going
to press this morning. The argument
OF counsel was concluded at 1:25 p. m.
yesterday and Judge Allen Immediately
delivered his charge to the jury. 1t was
brief, to the point and very just.
Yesterday morning Judge T. b. Womack
concluded his argument for the defense,
begun on Wednesday afternoon. He was
followed by Capt. w. H. Day, also for
the railroad. Capt. Day attacked the
testimony of the plaintiffs witnesses that
the ties in the road-bed and on the tres
tie We're rotten and spoke to the defend
ant's theory that the train was malic-
iously wrecked by unknown persons, who
drew the spikes from the track. Mr..
Armistead Jones, who had opened for the
plaintiff, then made the final argument
He made the point that it would have
been impossible for the spikes, which the
defendants witnesses testified were drawn
from the track and found after the wreck
lying on the ties, to have remained
where they were drawn out, after the
tarin had ploughed its way over those
ties. He moreover declared that there
was no possible motive for any one to
wreck that train.
In his charge to the jury, Judge Allen
said there were two issues to be consd-
cred and determined:
1. Was the plaintiff injured by reason
of the negligence of the defendant?
2 What damages if any, is he emit
tied to recover?
Upon the first ISSUE" said Judge AL
len, defendant admits that, the train
having gone off the track and the plain
tiff injured thereby, the burden of proof
is upon it to prove that the wreck was
not caused by its negligence.
eff you find that the train was de-
rallied by reason of the wanton and ma
licious drawing of spikes, and that the
defendant had no opportunity by the ex-
ercise of reasonable care to repair such
defects before the train passed, and that
such malicious act was the approximate
cause of plaintiffs injury, then the first
question should be answered, mo- In this
event it would be immaterial whether
the ties on the cattle guard We're rotten
or not, and if you find that the ties be-
fore the culvert or on it were decayed,
you shall not consider such evidence. II
you find that some of the ties were de-
cayed, and the track was otherwise good,
the answer should be no., unless you
shall find that the derailment and in
jury were the approximate result of such
decayed ties. The existence of defects in
the roadbed such as rotten ties, would
not render defendant liable for damages.
unless such. defects were. the occasion of
the plaintiffs injuries.
Nd pI o,,1
vert were in an unsafe condition by rea
son of unsound ties, and that the train
was wrecked by reason of this unsound
condition, and the plaintiff was injured
thereby, the answer would be yes If
you find that the train was derailed some
distance from the culvert by the work of
malicious persons, and that its momen-
tum carried the engine to the culvert,
and it was overturned, not by reason OF
rotten ties, but by reason of the derail-
rlent. the plaintiff cannot recover, but
If in this case there were rotten ties on
the culvert. and it was therey unsafe.
and that such defective ties and unsafe
condition could have been remedied, and
that such rotten ties caused the engine
to be overturned and was the approx
mate case of the plaintiffs injury, the
answer would be yes.
eff your answer should be yes you
will go on to the second issue.
s'As to the second issue, what dam
ages. if any is the plaintiff entitled to
recover? The plaintiff is entitled to re-
cover reasonable satisfaction for the loss
of both bodily and mental usefulness and
for actual suffering, both bodily and men
tally. and a reasonable allowance for
loss of time and for inability to perform
ordinary laor or loss of capacity to earn
money, resulting from his injuries. You
should also consider the question Wheth-
er plaintiffs injuries are permanent or
not. and what was his condition before the
injury. and his condition since, caused
bv the wreck You should consider his
age and expectancy. and give him rea-
sonable compensation representing the
present cash value of his injuries.
"You must remember that you cannot
give an actual equivalent for the injury.
but only a reasonable allowance, and
that you should not seek to punish the
defendant
The Jury took the case at AS o'clock.
The next case called was the suit of
Nessrs. s. A. Ashe and w. w Ashe, Jr.,
doing business as the Raleigh Hosiery
Co. against the Seaboard Air Line for
s2e. 739. so. as compensation for loss by
fire which the plaintiffs claim was caused
nv sharks from the railroad. Mr.. w. w.
Asbe Jr was on the stand yesterday
afternoon. The plaintiffs are represented
bv Messrs. Battle & Mordecai, and the
railroad by Capt w. H. Day and Hon.