The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-07-14
Mr., RAMsEuR MAKES STATEMENT,
He Replies to Statement by Judge Nc
lvar


called to the article of Judge McIver,
bearing date OF June 23rd, 1903, and pub
llshed I'D your paper. in reference TO the
case of Seawell VS.. Railroad. This article
does me an injustice. AS to the legal
questlonns discussed by Judge Mclver, OF
course, am not competent and have no
desire to speak. As to the propriety OF
one OF the PLAINTIFFS attorneys rushing
into print Tor the purpose of setting the
public right on the case, is perhaps
questino | should not express an opinion
about, but when an unfair statement OF
the evidence Is made and this statement
concerns myself even though it is made
by an ex-Judge of the Superior Court,
feel that have right to be heard.
In Judge McIver's article he states that
the jury found as follows: "That the de-
PENDANT, through its agents and employ
ees,. failed and neglected to protect or
offer to protect the plaintiff from the
insults and injuries heaped upon him" In
commenting upon this finding OF the jury
Judge McIver has the following to say:
mere was ample evidence to support
these findings by the jury. One OF the
agents of the railroad company went upon
the witness stand and swore that he par
ticipated in the assault on the plaintiff,
while ON duty, and that he threw one egg
at the plaintiff. This was an actual par
ticipation In the assault, and his admis
sions were supported by the testimony OF
other witnesses. The chief agent OF the
defendant also admitted while on the stand
as witness that he did nothing to pro-
tect the plaintiff during the assault, but
on the contrary laughed at it while it
was in progress. 1t was also in evidence
that this same witness stated to the crowd
Immediately after the assault that they
had not given him half enough'!"
l am the "chiet agent" referred to in the
above and Paul Carroll is lone OF the
agents of the railroad company referred
to in the above and the statement does
both of US an injustice, and is not a fair
statement of the evidence. 1t IS true that
| admitted on he stand that l did nothing
TO protect SeaweI, but | also stated that
| had no knowledge or information of the
intended assault upon Seawell and at the
time the assault occurred was about sixty
feet away from him and farther from the
crowd throwing the eggs than he was the
assaulting party being on depot platform,
and that the assault was practically over
before / knew anything about it. There
FORE it will be readily seen that | could
not have protected him nor could / have
offered to do So 1t is true that laughed
but the assault was over and / did this
when the train was leaving. and at that
time Mr.. Seawell was standing on the
rear platform OF the coach and waving his
nd 81 f1no ND ha f..a, lad MI
1t is also true, as Judge McIver says
that it was in evidence that | stated to the
crowd Immediately after the assault that
they ''had not given him half enough,
but the only evidence to this effect that
recall was that of a colored boy whose
character on the trial was proven to be
bad, and | distinctly stated that same
was not true, and / positively deny the
tluthfulness of such statement. The peo
pie who know me / am sure will have
no difficulty in deciding the truthfulness
OF this evidence Since the trial of this
case, l have been informed by the EN-
ployer of thic colored boy, who is a gen
tleman OF high character and standing in
this community, that Immediately after
and upon the same day of the assault,
this colored boy stated to him that l had
nothing whatever to do with it.
AS to Judge McIyers statement that
zone of the agents OF the railroad went
upon the witness stand and sWore that he
participated in the assault ON the plaintiff
while on duty, and threw one egg at the
plaintiff" it is true that Paul Carroll
stated that he threw an egg at Seawell,
but at the time he did this, he was not in
mis- place of duty and he threw the egg
after the assault by the crowd was over
and because Seawell threatened him with
his cane. and that the egg did not strike
Seawell. Carroll was depot hand tenn
porarily employed and acting as a substi-
tue for the regular hand.
l could say more in reference to the
case, but this would not be proper, and
would not be in response to Judge Me-
Iver's article l had no reason to anti
cipate the assault, nor was it in my power
to prevent same. 1t is true, it was a
thoughtless thing to have laughed, | sup
pose, but to me it seems an excusable
thing under the circumstances, especially
as it was done at the time when Mr.. Sea-
well himself seemed to be waving a friend
ly goodbye to the crowd. | think that
Judge McIver should have made fair
statement of the evidence.
wish to say that l ann not an employee
of the Seaboard Railway now nor have
been for some time.
WALTER RAMSEUR.
Shelby, N. c., July 8, 1908.