The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-07-15
MOTION FOR
Leave TO
REARGUE
Filed In Behalf Of Plaintiff In
the Case Of GaIIowShaw VS..
LOnsdals Company.

Counsel for the plaintiff in the case oi
William ID. Gallowshaw is the Lonsdaie
company has filed motion for leave "a
reargue on defendants petition for new
trial. The appellate court set aside a
Jury's verdict and directed judgment to
be entered for the defendant.
This case involves several questions
according TO counsel for the plaintiff. II
concerns. first the degree OF care which
q master must use towards children
whom he takes the risk OF employing
secondly the degree Of care 10 be expect
ed OF a child of tender years. thirdly the
difference OF the degree OF care required
for an adult and child OF the years OF
this plaintiff: forthly the requirements
of our statues in regard TO elevators; and
ffthly whether the action OF this court
IN setting aside ver1.cts OF Juries ana
virtually awarding contrary verdicts TO
defendants. Is warranted by our statues.
our constitution, and by our system OF
jury trial.
Hugh ]. Carroll is counsel for the plain
hn and argues that master who un-
dertakes TO have his work done by chill
dren even II it be called children's work,
more care Is required OF him in guarding
the children from danger than would be
dianry care for child MIR. Carroll says
the care which a child Is required 20 ex-
ercise must differ according to the intel
ligence. age and experience OF the child
gn question, as we'll as that OF the aver
age capacity of a class Of children who
MAY be engaged | ma certain kind Of oc-
rupation. That therrore none but a jury
which has seen the child. or heard all tie
evidence andl examined the circumstan-
res and environment can rightfully decide
IN any given case whether the child used
"a AaaA h. "A
ehtld.
There were no railings or trap doors
upon the elevator into which the Gal
lowshaw child feH and was killed. Even
as the statute law then was, IL has s.nce
been improved. n Is claimed the statute
was not complied with.
The most important question raised by
MIR. Carroll. and Il becomes OF even
greater importance since the opinion
handed down by the court yesterday or
dering judgment IN the case OF Ennis
Va r. y Little and company setting
aside a $500 verdict. is has the court the
right 70 invade the province OF the tury.
Mr.. Carroll In HIS brief says The mem
berr OF court are entitled 20 have
opinions OF their own as 20 the value ~
the facts adduced. but the law IL very
tnsistent in keeping the court and the
jury separate.
And when case passes through the
hands OF ntsi prins ptudge and a reRu-
lar Jury solemnly drawn from the ciu-
xens and sworn % take the law as the
Judge lays Il before them: and as the
law presumes that the jury took the law
from the court. this court cannot weigh
evidence. pro and con. and say that the
the jury refused 10 take the law from
che lips of the court and decide the cese
reen rdless of that law But that seems
20 counsel 10 be what the court done here
by holding this child negligent The de-
gree OF negligence In the case of a child
10 % particularly and Intensely n matter
OF fact that every discussion OF the cues.
don 20 be found I'm the books sustains
the piainuff's contention"
Mr. Carroll also argues that the statute
only expressly provides for the entry of
judgment on wrong rulings and ell ~
can do when matter ~ fact seems
wrongfully found by jury is 70 direct
q new trial