The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-06-16
HIGH PRICE FOR
Is ANTIQUE EGGS
SeaweII VS.. Carolina Central
Railroad Affirmed.
$500 EACH FOR THE EGGS
For Being Assaulted With Fifteen Antique Eggs
in the Station at Shelby Mr.. H. L. Seawell
Receivers Four thousand Five Hun
bred Dollars.

The decision in the case of Seawell
against the Carolina Contra railroad was
handed down by the Supreme court yes
| terday. This case is a very important one
from a legal point OF view, as 1t tends to
settle a railroads liability for non-pro-
lection Of its passengers, etc. 1t IS Flr-
tually a confirmation of the decision on
the celebrated case of Daniei, Adminlstra-
tor. vs.. Petersburg Railroad, except IN
the Daniel case a passenger, after he had
left the train the day before, and on the
next day went to the station for his bas-
gage, and while there got into an alter
cation with the agent over some storage
charges and was killed by the agent. In
the Seawell case Mr.. Seawcli was not
killed, but was rotten-egged.
On June End, 1902, Mr.. H. l.. Seawell
| vent to Shelby to make a populistlc
speech. He at that time was a candidate
for Lieutenant-Governor on the POpullst
ticket. Some men unknown IN Shelby,
warned him that the Shelby people did lot
| desire to hear his oratorical eloquence,
| and that it would be best for him if he
| cancelled his date. This Mr.. Seawell did
| after mature elaboration.
| He went to the station with a mileage
| book in his pocket for the purpose OF
boarding a train, soon expected, for Ham
let. While on the premises of the rail
| road company, and between the arrival
| and departure of the train, and while III
| the act of entering the train, one Walter
| Ramseur. and one Paul Carroll, together
| with other persons unknown did, as the
| complaint says, wrongfully, and unlaW-
| fully assault and beat the plaintiff (Mr.
| SeawelD striking him in the face, and on
| various other parts of his person with
| (antlque, fifteen in number eggs and did
| otherwise maltreat the plaintiff; by reason
! of which the plaintiff was compelled to
| ride on the train from Shelby to Char
| lotte in clothing which was badly soiled
| by the impact and bursting of the eggs,
| and thereby rendered it uncomfortable
| disagreeable. and for the time unfit for
use on the train. The complaint also al
legged that as the train was pulling out OF
| shelby the man Ramseu used vile
| epithets towards Mr.. Seawell, calling him
a - Populist, etc.
On these facts Mr.. Seawell brought suit
from the Moore county court for 10000
damages. A high price for fifteen eggs,
surely. The first trial resulted in a mis-
trial. At the second trial Mr.. Seawell re
covered $4,000. Still, a fair price for fiji
/ jCth CSSo. IIoiI CiIS UlCC ChC GAL oob
appealed.
The Supreme court affirms the decision
OF the lower court, saying that a passen-
ger IS not only not to be maltreated by,
but is due protection from the railroad
officials from the time he enters upon the
premises OF the company for the purpose
of becoming a passenger until he lands at
his destinations, has secured his baggage,
etc, and has ceased to be a passenger IN
the whole sense of the word.
The case presents some funny, laughable
features. Think of an august candidate
for heutenant-g governor, frocked IN a
prince albert coat and a "shiney beaver
hat being treated to a dose of fifteen an,
tique eggs. of the 1S49 variety, call a
blank populist, and having to ride all the
way from Shelby to charlotte with his
clothing despatched over with antique
eggs, by reason of which his clothing was
badly very soiled (were l reckon) by tho
impact and bursting of the (antique) eggs
thereby rendering them mot the eggs
unfit for use on the train.
The court cited the following authori-
ties in the decision of the case:
Tillett vs.. Railroad Us N. I. 665; Hans
ley vs.. Railroad, page COB; Dodge VS.
Steamboat Company, 2SS R. A. SO; Daniel
VS., Railroad, III N. C. 592: williams vs.
Gill, 122 N. c. 967; Cagdell vs.. Railroad
124-302; Owens VS.. Railroad, 1875 N. c.. 139:
Palmer VS.. Railroad 1880; Steamboa;
Company vs.. Bracket, 1861, 5 Am. and
Eng. Ency. of Law end. Ed 541; Trac-
ton Company VS.. Lane, As l.. R. A. $40.