Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-11-11
Federal Jury Gives v rdict For
Estates of Victims Cliff
ton Hotel
BUT THE AWARDS ARE SMALL
Plaintiffs Asked for Forty Thousand
and Got Only $4ooo-6oth Sides Ask
New Trial, as Precedent is Desired
Judge Reeds Charge TO the Jury
State News.
Special to Times-Rcpublican,

| Special to Times Republican,
Cedar Rapids, Nov. 1.-THE first
damage cases growing out of the Cit
ton hotel fire in which SO many lives
| were lost last year were decided in fed
eral court this morning, when the jury
| awarded the Aispund estate $1,000 and
the Young estate $4,000 The amount
sued for was $4,000 and each side viii
ask for new trial. The suits were
brought against the Bever Land Com
pany. which owned the Clifton hotel.
The company will resist payment of
! It will set precedent for a large num-
beS of other cases, while the plaintiffs
whose cases We're consolidated, are
not satisfied with the amount of dam
ages. The trial was begun in federal
court week ago last Tuesday. AT
the outset the defense Won an impor-
tant point by securing ruling from
the court that the state law regarding
fire escapes was not applicable to
special charter cities. But in his
charge to the jury Judge Reed held
that the ordinance was as binding in
that regard as the state law. The
courts charge covered many impor-
tant features Of the. case.
Some facts on the case. Judge Reed
said, were settled. There was no dis
pute that the Bever Land Company was
the owner of the building at the time
of the fire. or that the third floor Of
that building was usually occupied by
twenty-five or more. guests, or that the
two combined ladders and standpipes
the one in the front and the other in
the rear of the building. had not been
erected, originally. as required by the
terms of the ordinance and so ac-
cepted by the mayor and the chief of
the fire department. Likewise there
was no dispute that the combined
standpipe and ladder had been removed
from the First avenue front of the ho-
tel and had never been replaced.
But 1t was not sufficient. the court
charged the jury, for the plaintiff to
prove that the men, Johnson and
Young, lost their lives in the fire. 1t
must be proved that they lost their
defendants to comply with the pro-
visions of the ordinance. If they should
fail to do this, then the plaintiffs
could not recover. If the weight of
the evidence established the belief that
the plaintiffs We're not aroused on the
night of the fire. but died in their
rooms, then the plaintiffs could not re-
cover. The first two questions for the
jury to determine, was whether john
son and Young were aroused on the
night of the fire and whether they
made any effort to reach the fire es-
cape. The court then reviewed the
testimony Of all the witnesses along
this point. mentioning that of one OF
the clerks. who said that he knocked
on the door of Jchnson's room ana
that the hall was filed with noise and
commotion. The evidence to establish
the fact that Johnson and Young were
aroused, the court said. need not he
the direct testimony of eye witnesses.
1t might be circumstantial The court
defined circumstantial evidence ana
its limitations.
With reference tc the locked doors
in the hallway the court held that II
the Jury found that the doors were
locked by Young and Lansing in prac-
tjce. without the consent or the knowl-
edge of the Bever Land Company, then
the Bever Land Company was not Ii
able. But if the jury found from the
evidence that the Bever Land Com
pany did know of the practice and
made no objections, then it would be A
participant in the act and therefore
liable. But the jury must not use
conjecture or suspicion in reaching
such a decision The court then re-
viewed considerable of the testimony
bearing on this point. He ended by
saving that 1T is not unreasonable 20
presume that the Bever Land Company
knew. but this is matter for the jury
to determine.
With reference to the contention of
the defendants that the standpipe and
ladder would have been of no avail in
front Of the building, even If they had
been in place, the court held that as
matter of law this did not excuse the
Bever Land Company. Their neglect
he said. could not be excused by show
ing that the ladder and the hose of the
fire department took the place OF the
standp.pe and ladder required by the
ordinance.