The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1902-10-04
THE MARTIN TRIAL.
judgment for Martin 5000 Motion TO Set
Aside Refused Notice Of an App, 81 TO b.
Taken.

Thursday morning at 10 O'Clock the
Court convened at stafford. &. H.. and
while the Jury were being taken To view
the crossing where the accident resulting
in the deaths occurred. .he matter of the
Courts Instructions TO the Jury was
taken up. aud a spirited contest between
oppOsin.. counsel resulted. Counsel for
the Defendant objected To all except one
OF eight Instructions offered by the plain.
tin = Counsel, and moved the Court to
give six instructions rendered for the de.
iendant. The principal underlying the
instructions Offered by the plaintiff was
that under Virginia law. the contribute
~ negligence OF a parent cannot be i'm
puted TO a child Of tender years. In di
rect conflict with this position, Counsel
for the Defendant contended that while
the child might recover II the injury had
not resulted in death still. where the
father was the beneficial plaintiff az In
this ease, he was guilty of any negligence
committed by his son Patrick Martin ,Jr..
who was permitted by Martin, Sr., to
drive the vehicle which was struck 10y
the train.
Judge Mason ruled in favor of the in
structiOns tendered by the Plaintiffs
Counsel, and his action was excepted to
by the Defendant. Plaintiffs Counsel al
80 excepted TO the giving Of two Of the
defendants instructions which tine Court
gave. The Jury had then returned from
viewing the crossing and after dinner
were called into Court, and the argument
commenced Mr. W ID. Carter opened
Tor the plaintiff. and was followed by Mr.
Hill carter. OF Richmond, for the Rail
Road Company Mr.. Fitzhugh then spoke
for about three quarters OF an hour for
the defense and the argument was closed
by Hon. AT. Embrey in a speech which
while brief. was an able answer TO argu
ments put forward by the DEFENDANTS
Counsel aud which had evidently great
weight with the jury The jury were out
only about ten or twelve minutes. and
returned verdict in favor of the plaintiff
for the amount claimed in the deciara-
ton, 100000
Counsel for the Rail Road Company i'm
mediately moved the Court TO set aside
the verdict as contrary To the law and
the evidence, but the Court promptly ov-
er-ruled the motion. and entered judg-
ment for the plaintiff The Counsel for
the Defendant gave notice that they
would take an appeal, aud sixty days
was allowed them in which to get up
the necessary papers. the three bills OF
exception taken during the trial were
signed 10y the Court and the term closed
leaving on the docket the untried case
pending for the death OF the older OF the
Martin girls, for whose death damages
to the amount OF 5000 have been sued
for.
/ The verdict of the jury seems to give
entire satisfaction in the community
and Counsel for Martin say they have
very little apprehension OF any adverse
action by the Court of Appeals when
this case is reviewed by that tribunal
Counsel for the Rail Road admit that to
reverse Judge MasOn's rulings in thecase
the Court OF Appeals has 10 depart from
the doctrine a. to contributOry negli-
gence in the case Of children rs at pres
ent understood. but they claim that the
particular phase of the question raised
by their exceptions has never been pass
ed upon by the Virginia Court Of Ap.
peals