The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-28
ARE ENGINEERS
RETIRED AFTER 5O2
that's the Question at Issue
in Watson Suit.
THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
Railroad Admits Negligence, but Holds Engin-
eer Watson Would Soon Have Been
Withdrawn From Main Line on
Account Of fge.

Would Engineer James r. Watson
have been soon retired from service on
the main line of the Seaboard Air Line if
he had not been killed by the lumber car
that rolled down upon him from the rail-
road yard as he was bringing in his train
from the North?
That is the principal question in the
suit now being brought in the Superior
Court here by his son as administrator.
Engineer Watson was in his flfty-first
year, and the defendant railroad is at
tempting to show that it is the general
custom of railroad companies to retire
engineers from service on the main line
after the age of fifty thus reducing their
earning capacity.
or the question in the suit is one of the
amount of damages only, the railroad ad-
hitting negligence, the killing of the en-
gineer at his post of duty, and his unim-
peachable character and splendid reputa-
ton for faithfulness and reliability.
Accordingly, the evidence that had any
bearing on the case was that which con-
and his expectancy.
1t was legal battle royal between Col
Argo and Capt Day over the question
asked railroad men on the stand: What
is the general custom of railroads about
retiring engineers over fifty years of
age?" The defense had on the stand the
Superntendents of Motive Power of the
Norfolk and Western HALFWAY and Of the
Seaboard Air Line, and the question was
propodunded to them. 1t had also been
asked fseveral witnesses for the plain
tiff.
The judge finally admitted the question;
but no definite reply could be got to it
from any of the witnesses. Several said
they know the custom of particular
roads; but this was not allowed, as the
question had been asked the other way
That was how plaintiffs counsel got back
at counsel on the other side. 1t was
pretty fight all around.
Section Master w. B. Hudson. who had
charge of the section where the accident
occurred. was the first witness, but moth
ing of his testimony was needed, except
as to the character and habits of En-
gineer Watson, since the defense admit
ted the killing as alleged in the complaint
and the negligence of the road. Witness
testified to the faithful service and ex-
emplary habits of Engineer Watson and
said the brakes were on when the loco
motive was examined after the accident
as showing that the dead engineer he'd
heroically stucky to his post to the last,
and done all in his power to avert the
calamity, losing his life at his post OF
duty However, this was all admitted by
the defendant.
Senator James NJ. Lamb testified that
he had known the dead engineer since
1874, in Fayetteville. At mat time he
was principally thrown with him in re-
ligious work, in the Sunday school and
Y NJ c. A. He was one of the finest
young men ne ever knew. II was en-
ployed at that time by the Cape Fear
garded as one of the most faithful and
hard working men in the service of that
road Physically he was robust
Mr.. David King, brother law of En-
gineer Watson, and an engineer himself
also told the jury of the character and
habits of the deceased. He was in his
ffty-frst year at the time of the acci-
dent. There was no man he knew more
faithful, industrious and reliable. He
was economical in his personal expendi-
lures.
Then came the question of his earning
power, and it was shown that the de-
ceased was earning at the time of his
death anywhere from $110 to $135
month, or thereabout.
Mr.. King was asked by Capt Day
whether or not engineers were retired
fcA hn ,,fy in,
years of age Then came the first tilt
on the admissibility of this question, be-
tween Captain Day and Colonel Argo. and
it was a spirited one. Finally Judge
Bryan admitted this evidence, and ex-
ception was noted by the plaintiff
William H. Lewis, of Roanoke. Va,
Superintendent of Motive Power of the
Norfolk and Western Railway. He al
at one time been an engineer; had about
twenty-five years experience and obserya-
tion of railroad matters. His belief and
observation were tat there was a weak
enng of the faculties OF engineers after
the age of fifty.
Asked at what age an engineer would
ordinarily be retired from duty on the
main line. Mr.. Lewis replied that that
would depend upon the individual man TO
large extent. There were about $50
engineers on the Norfolk and Western,
and very few only two or three, were
over sixty years of age. A man of sixty
could not. in his opinion generally per-
form such efficient services as man
of forty
Finally Major Shaw asked Mr.. Lewis
what was the custom of his road as TO
retiring engineers after the age of fifty
Colonel Argo objected and there N
sued sharp argument between counsel
as to the competency Of the question.
Colonel Argo contending that the custom