The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-01


the order the court feels it proper to
say that, while that evidence is in, it
is not proper for the jury to consider
it in connection with any one of the
issues.
The first issue is
"IS it practicable for train No. 80 of
the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, due
to arrive at Selma at ESQ p. M, to
make connection at Selma with train
No. 1875, westbound, of the Southern
Railway, due to leave Selma at 2:35
p. M"
But the admitted facts show that
the connection at Selma was main
tanned by the two railroad companies
for many years, and that in recent
years the defendant was not able to
get its train to Selma on time, and
hence the connection was very uncer-
tain, also that the Southern Railway
had recently changed its schedule SO
as to leave Selma at 1925 instead of
2:50. But the order of the commits
sion itself admitted the impractcabil-
ity of No. 80 getting to Selma by 2:25,
so the court inStructs the jury to an
swer the first issue no.
The second issue is:
us it practicable to make said con-
nection by extending the run of the
Plymouth train daily from Plymouth
would be the additional EXPENSE
The court holds that the burden is
upon the plaintiff to show by the pre-
ponderance of evidence that it is prac-
ticable. The court thinks it would be
unreasonable to expect the defendant
to equip its main line for this one en-
CINE. The railroad employees have
testified that it is impracticable for
this Plymouth train to make the trip,
4. Il,
the plaintiff has failed to show that
it is practicable. Therefore the jury
is directed to answer the second issue
no.
The Third issue:
SIS it practicable to make said con-
nection by the use of the Spring Hope
train, and if so, what would be the
additional expense?" ~
The court for the same reasons as
in the second, directs the jury to an
swer no also.
AS to the fourth issue:
"In order TO make such connection
would defendant company have to run
an additional train on its main line
from Rocky Mount to Selma ~
The court directs that this be ans
wered yes.
The fifth issue is:
us it practicable for said train TO
safely run the schedule prescribed in
plaintiffs order. having due regard
to the number of trains, and number
of stops on defendants main line from
Rocky Mount TO Selma"
That presents purely question OF
fact, not one whether the company is
financially able to run the train. but
whether it is practicable and safe or
not. The jury must consider the con-
dition of the track at that point. The
conditions of traffic must be consider
ed and the rules established by the
defendant company. 1t is admitted
that a passenger thain has right of
way over a freight train, also that
trains going north have right of way
over trains going South.
The sixth issue is:
what would be the daily cost of
operating such train from Rocky Mt.
to Selma and return?'
That also involves purely question
of fact. The plaintiff contends it
would not cost over $35 or $40 day.
The defendant claims 1t would cost
$63 Il day. In ascertaining the cost,
the jury will have to estimate the act
ual cost Of the crew, the fuel oil and
waste, depreciation of engine and
cars, interest on cost of same, and al
so trackage.
Inc seventh ISSUE is
What would be the probable daily
receipts from such train ~
That again is simply a question of
fact. The plaintiff contends it would
be somewhere between $40 and $4S a
day. The defendant according to Mr..
Emerson'S testimony, claimed that If
it carried all the Raleigh passengers
it would not be more than $13.6S a
day, and if you excluded those that
went by Weldon, it would be only
about SO. Also the passengers that
went by other trains must be consid-
cred. 1t was in indisputed evidence
that there were four trains Il day each
way.
The eighth issue IS:
rs it reasonable and proper that
for convenience Of the travelling pub
lie, the defendant company should be
required to make such Connection"
In order that the jury might under
stand this Judge Brown read section
q of the act creating the Corpora
ton Commission, as follows:
"All common carriers subject to the
provisions of this act shall accord
ing to their powers afford all reason
able proper and equal facilities for
the interchange of traffic between
their respective lines and for the for
Warding and delivering of passengers
and freights to and from their several
lines and those connecting Herewith
and shall not discriminate in their
rates and charges against such con-
Meeting lines, and connecting lines
shall be required to make as close con-
nection as practicable for the conven-
fence of the travelling public"
The jury should divide that issue
into two parts: !. Is this afternoon
connection convenient to the peonla|
of the section? The court is of the
opinion that it was a convenience to-
the travelling public. 2. Is the order al
reasonable and proper one? The
plaintiff must show this by the pre-
ponderance of evidence. The plain-
tiff contends that it was because the
Coast Line failed to get it's train to Sell
ma in time that the connection was
broken and that it was not till after
the Southern found that the Coast Line
did not get it's train there on time that
it changed its schedule, and that he
cause of the broken connection very
great Inconvenience had result
ed to the people of eastern Carolina,
The defendants contend thev
are already running four trains every
day from Rocky Mount TO