The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1904-05-05
PLAINTIFF LOSES CASE.
Judge Decides Damage Case in Favor
of Defendant

After spending the entire day in hear
ing the evidence in the case of w H.
Neid>versus o. R. Gleason, Judge Alex
ander decided the case in favor of the
defendant yesterday evening at o'clock
in the city court
On April p Neild sued for $3.50 claimed
as damages from the death of his horse
''Whfrlwind'' which sustained a broken
leg at the Gleason exhibition on North
Main street, April II. and was later killed
by the attending veterinary surgeon.
w. H. Neild. the owner of the horse
was the first witness called yesterday
morning. He testified that he traded a
team for the horse on February 2s, TO
! E. S. Hadley and that the horse had
never been taken from the stable. with
! one exception. until the night of the ex-
/ iibition. He said that the horse was SIX
years old and he considered him worth
$3.50 as q track horse. He said that he had
met Mr. Gleason and told him to come
and get the horse and see what he could
do with il. He said that after the horses
ankle was broken he did not see it again
and that ii was shot without his knowl-
/ edge or consent. He admitted that the
horse was unmanageable. and denied that
he ever offered 20 trade the horse for a
so secondhand sewing machine
+. S. Hadley was the next witness call
ed. He said that he had traded sorrel
horse to Mr.. Neild during last February,
which he supposed was the one in dues-
ton, though he had not seen it since the
trade was made. He told of how the horse
away from him nd ra, ,,iya-.
that he used three horses in capturing it.
When this run was made there was moth
Ing wrong with the horse or with the
bones of its feet. He said that he pur-
chased the horse in Ellsworth, Kan,
where it had been received from Battle |
Mountain. Nevada, with a herd
This closed the plaintiffs case and n |
demurrer to the evidence was filed by the |
defendant, but it was overruled by the /
court
Louis Fowler was the first witness call |
ed by the defense. He has been with |
Gleason for a number of years and it |
was his business to secure the horses for |
the exhibition. Mr. Fowler stated that /
Mr.. Neild said he would be glad to have
them break his horse and later when he
and G. w. Laughlin went to look at the
horse Neild said that the horse was not
worth dollar to him in his present con-
dition. He also testified concerning the
way Mr.. Gleason handled the horse in the
ring on the night the accident occurred.
e. Struble. who has been in the horse
breaking and training business for the
past forty years was the next witness.
He stated that Mr.. Gleason used the same
methods that all trainers used and that
he handled the horse carefully. He also
said that Mr.-Neild had said that the
horse was wild and no man could lay
hand on him.
S N Bridgeman. the deputy district
clerk. then testified. He said he was pres
ent the night the accident occurred and
that in his Judgment Mr. Gleason used
due care and caution in handling the
horse
T. E Ward testified concerning the con-
dition of the bones in the horses leg. He
said the broken bone was badly honey
combed and in diseased condition. He
also testified that he was called into the
ring by Mr.. Gleason to examine the horse
and he discovered that its leg was brok
en-.
". c. Beck, Joseph Crisp and Henry y
Stallings ali testified that Prof. Gleason
exercised much caution in handling the
horse and was in no way negligent.
Prof Gleason was then called. He testi-
fed as to the handling of the horse and
also that il was near IS years DID, instead
Of s. and he told how one could judge the
age of a horse by its teeth. He said that
the horse was between Il and 10 years
of age. He said that the fracture was of
such nature that nothing could be
lone and the horse had to be killed. The
professor stated that he had used the
same method for thirty years and had
never had ar accident He said that the
horse was in very poor condition
on rebuttal Mr.. Neild denied that he
said the horse was worth nothing to him
and that he did not ask them to break il
for him.
In giving his decision Judge Alexander
said that he thought the only material
point in the case was whether the pro-
lessor had been negligent or careless in
handling the horse and that such a fact
lad not been proven. The supreme court
rules that where the bailment is for the
benefit Of both parties the bailee must .
Use ordinary care and caution and is not .
fable for negligence. Where the benefit Z
: for the bailor alone. the bailee must
exercise slight care and is liable for only !
gross negligence. $
LAS no evidence has been introduced !
where in negligence has been shown, / c
hail have to ind for the defendant" was 7
he conclusion Of Judge Alexanders de :
,ision. T
The case attracted much attention. 2
arge number Of persons being present 5
Turing the entire trial. w A. Ayers was
attorney Tor the defendant.