The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-03-28
SEAWtLL EGG SUIT
Argument on Appeal Begun
in Supreme Court.
Judge Shepherd for the Railroad Declares the
Station Agent Had Nothing to do With
the Assault.

Yesterday in the Supreme Court the
argument was begun in the appeal for a
new trial of the Seawell suit against the
Seaboard Air Line. Judge James f..
shepherd spoke for the railroad Today
counsel for Seawell, Senator L. L. Spence,
W. J. Adams and Douglass and Simms.
viii present their side of the matter. and
w. e. Murchison, of Jonesboro. will close
for the railroad.
rms VIII be remembered as the famous
rotten egg case. in which H. f. Seawell
seeks to recover damages from the Sea-
BOARD AIT Line for being pelted with an
Gent eggs at the railroad station at
Shelby
IL was on June End, 1900, and Mr. Sea-
wen was at that time the Fusion
candidate for Attorney General He had
just made speech at Shelby, and was at
the station preparing to leave on the
train, when crowd came down to the
station from the town and just as the
train approached the station let loose
Volley of eggs upon Mr.. Seawell. Their
aim was good, and Mr.. Seawel's gar
ments We're caked with the yolks and
whites of malodorous hen fruit 1t is
alleged that after the throwing of the
eggs the crowd ran into the depot and
held the door fast.
The case did not come up for trial
until last May. on account of the crowded
condition of the Moore county docket
Then there was a mistrial, on account of
the illness and death of Capt. Days sis
ter.
AT last the trial came off in September
before Judge Robinson and Mr.. SeawelI
was awarded s4,500
The plaintiff brought evidence to show
that Hall Carroll, a station hand threw
the last egg and that he admitted that
he threw others; also that Walter Ram
seur, the station agent, had said: Boys
you haven't egged him enough"
The railroad appealed from the judg-
ment of the court. and the argument is
now on the question of the admissibility
of certain evidence.
The main points In Judge Shepherds
argument were as follows:
This court has decided that in order
to charge the defendant with liability for
the act of an employee the latter must
have been acting in the general scope of
his duty.
There was evidence that after the chief
assault had ended. plaintiff approached /
one Carroll and drew his stick on him. !
Carroll denied that he had thrown any
eggs, but there is evidence that after
Seawell retired towards the train Carroll
threw an egg. which plaintiff admits did
not strike him. The evidence is that !,
CAROLS employment was that of tenn
porary hand, and that his duties We're to
build fires bring water, sweep out office
load and unload and check baggage and
freight. There was no baggage to check
or to load or unload, and he had no duties
whatever to perform on the platform
As to Ramseur, the agent. it appears
from the plaintiffs own statement that
the assault was made by a crowd coming
rapidly from Shelby. 1t also appears
that although he was watching them as
they went in and out the depot I
he had no reason to suspect that any as
sault would be made. He says that he
took the popping of the eggs to be noise
made by the machinery. The whole evil
dence shows that the assault was sudden /
and of short duration. There is no evil
dence that Ramseur was out of his office
or seen with the crowd until the APP
proach of the train.
There is no evidence that Ramseur
knew that any assault was contemplated
nor is there the slightest evidence that