Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1903-11-01
THE SUPREME COURT
A Reversal Of the Case Of Bennett VS..
Phoenix Light and Fuel Co.

The session of the supreme court
yesterday was a brief one and only
one case was finally passed upon. That
was the case of the Phoenix Light az
Fuel company, appellant against Thos.
D. Bennett appellee in which the
judgment of the lower court was re-
versed and the case was rennanded for
a new trial. This was suit to recover
damages in the sum of $4,000 for the
destruction of the house of the appellee
by fire one night in the summer OF
1899. The fire originated from an cleo
trio wire and it was claimed by Mr..
Bennett that the cause of IT was de-
fective insulation. The fire broke out
in the midst of violent electric storm
The case was tried the following fall
and the jury awarded the plaintift
s., 500. He moved for new trial which
was granted and at that trial he was
given a judgment for $3.40i.05. From
this judgment the company Appealed
on various grounds but mainly con the
ground of an error in the instructions
to the jury.
The opinion reviews the evidence by
which il was shown that the house had
been originally wired by other parties
than the defendant and that when
the connections were made they were
made with the wires already in the
house. Later the point of entry was
changed and a wire was run through
an auger hole in the easement of an
attic window.
ON the night of the fire the plaiutiff
was sitting in his residence reading
ard suddenly the lights went out. He
went to TIE point where the wire en-
tered the house and noticed that the
insulation was defective. He con-
tinued his reading by lamp light and
soon cfter that the discovery was
made that the house was on fire. Dur
ing all this TIM the roar of the thun-
der and the flash of the lightning was
almost incessant.
II was shown on the part of the COM
pany that the next day the wire was
found to be burned for distance o.
twenty feet from the building but 1
transformer nearby indicated that no
more than the usual current had pass
ed through it. The defense insisting
that the complainant should Prov
that the current whioh had caused
the damage had come from the plan
of the defendant. at the same tim
kept to the front the idea that tn
wire naQ pTODdUly De'-i - w -
lightning near the house and had beef
laden with an usual current Their
was Il theory of the plaLntiff that tn
rain had driven into the opening
through which the wire passed int
the house and moistened the wire an
its surrounding and on account Of tn
defective insulation had made "shor
circuit"
Before the case was submitted {
the Jury the instructions presented b
counsel to the court had been agree
upon that they might be used in tn
argument In one Of the instruction
) the court said that the plaintiff shout
he required to show that the currer
had come from the plant and that b
reason OF the defectthe wire was ur
able to carry it. In the charge to tn
Jury that instruction was modified /
language which the appellant believe
had misIed the jury, the language be
ing that it made no difference wher
the electricity came from, the clouds
the plant.
Regarding this modification the opir
ion contains the following: we fe