The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-04-21
AN ourRAcEoUs VERDICT.

The disposition shown by the average jury to decide against railroad was pointediy shown in recent case in South Carolina. where the jury gave J Mrs Franklin verdict for s25,ooo be- cause. as she alleges, she had been n- suited by two men on the train. The Greenvilie, S. C., News says:
 According to the testimony of Conduc- tor Roseboro, who was in charge of tho train. he supposed Mrs. Franklin and the men whom she alleged were rude 10 her were friends until she appealed to him for protection, when he promptly ordered the men not to speak to her again.
 It is dfficuit to see how the railroad or any of it's employees could have been to blame in this case. There is no evil dence that the conductor had any knowl- edge that the men were in any manner nisbehaying. There was no evidence to show that the conductor knew that she woman had been annoyed until she com plained to him. and then he took prompt steps to protect her and ensure her against further Insult or annoyance. Yet on the assertion of the woman that she had been insulted by the two men this outrageous verdict was rendered.
 It is not so much the amount of dam- sges awarded-thoueh that was large un- Ger the circumstances-that makes tho action of the jury indefensible. It is the disposition shown by the jury that is to be deplored and condemned. It Is unfortunate, but no less true, that In a majority of cases a juryman looks on railroad as legitimate victim to be hied to tho fullest extent man who can get the best of railroad is looked on as great man, worthy Of any hon- ors, and a person who has been in any way injured by a railroad Is to be awarded the heaviest damages the Law win allow.
 This Is all wrong. It Is wrong in the- ory, wrong in disposition and wrong in practice. The railroads are not mere souliess corporations. TEey are not en- enies to the people Or the State. They are entitled to exactly the same fairness and justice that individuals are. If woman visiting a store should be in- suited by a male visitor without the knowledge of the proprietor, would any jury fine him s25e0o for an act commit ted by another, and of which the said proprietor and his employees had no knowledge until after the act? We do not believe any jury would give such a verdict, or that any court would allow 1t tos stand.
 And yet. SO far as we can see. .he soutir~ Carolina verdict was just as un- fair as this would be. It is the duty of conductor and other employees of n | train to see that order is preserved and that the passengers are not molested. If there had been lack of diligence or at- | tention in the case we are speaking of tthen the woman might have been enti- tied to some damages. Even in such a case the amount of the verdict in The Franklin case would have been excess sive
 | There is one view of a case of this kind which should not be lost sight of and that is that such verdicts as the one in this case will tend to increase the growing distrust which railroads have in the State Courts. When they are treated as the Southern was in the case we are discussing. 1t is no wonder that they appeal to the Federal Courts whenever 1t is possible. If the I common fairness, it is no wonder fl they refuse to look to such courts for justice.