The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-10-31
STEWART CASE AGAIN.
Damage Suit for killing of S. A. l..
Engineer.

Tn the Superior Court yesterday
the second trial of the case of Adm'x
of c. A. Stewart, VS.. the Seaboard Air
Line Railway was begun and testi-
mony taken for both plaintiffs, who
rested and for the defense, which just
begun to introduce witnesses.
The plaintiffs intestate was an en-
gineer on the S. A. L. who was Killed
in a collision along with two others,
on June 23rd, 1903. He was in rail-
road parlance running light" and
as an eXtra-that u.s. running with an
engine and tender alone from Raleigh
to Aberdeen. His engine and tender
were known as extra ZOO AT VasS,
a tile station near Southern Pines,
Stewart stopped for orders and there
received a telegram notifying him to
wait at that point for No. 8, a regular
train running through Hamlet to
Raleigh. No. 6, another regular train,
was due by schedule about the same
time at Vass. Engineer Stewart re-
ceived no orders as to the last named
train and proceeded with his engine
and tended towards Southern Pines.
At Niagara, a small intermediate sta
ton. he came suddenly in collision
with number 6, and he and two were
killed.
When the case was before heard,
before Long, J.. the plaintiff was nom
suited and appealed to the Supreme
Court, which granted new trial.
The grounds on which the plaintiff
sues are that there should have been
orders given the plaintiffs intestate
as to Number 6 as we'll as to Number
8. The defense contends that the
rules regarding the ruhning of trains
fully covered the case and that the
engineer should have been governed
thereby; that in his failure to await
Number 6 until the receipt of orders
authorizing him to go ahead he was
guilty of contributory negligence.
The trial of the case, in which large
damages are alleged, will consume
several days of the time Of the Court.
The grounds on which the Supreme
Court granted the plaintiff a new
trial were that the question of the
rules and orders and whether they
were such as to bind the plaintiff
should have been left to the jury
Contempts.
In the Supreme Court this week two
cases will be argued. arising from
the Courts held by Judge r. B. Pee
bles in Stanley. They will not, how
ever, create the excitement or eat up
the space which was allotted to the
Judges first departure in the matter
of attachments for contempt when he
held the entire bar of Lumberton to
a series of famous hearings, ending
in habeas corpus proceedings.
In the two cases at iSsue-State VS..
Thompson and State VS.. Norton
it seems that the respondents were
sureties on the bond of one indicted
for the illegal sale of whiskey and
that pending the trial they approached
and offered money to States witness
not to swear against the defendant
in the trial, and also to use his in
fuence with the other States wit
nesses so that the defendant would
not be convicted.
Such action Judge PEBBLES held as a
fact to be an unlawful, wrongful and
corrupt attempt to influence the said
witness, John Baltimore, to swear
falsely on the trial of said action and
to unlawfully interfere with the trial
and proceedings of said action and to
injure the rights of the State in the |
trial of the same.
In very short brief the Attorney |
General says of these cases which |
arise practically upon an Identical
state of facts:
1.-THE case at bar is covered by In re
Gorham, 129 n. c., 481. and Young's |
case, 1877 NJ c., $50. The latter case, |
which seems to be directly in point |
is not cited in the defendants brief |
and must have been overlooked His |
Honor found that the defendant in
tended to unlawfully and wrongfully |
interfere with judicial proceedings |
The intention cannot be considered |
for it is the acts of the defendant |
which constitute the contempt. In |
such case the defendant cannot |
purge himself. 1t is unnecessary to
say more. 1t is submitted that upon |
the authority of the foregoing cases
the judgment of the Court below
should be affirmed. If it were ma
terial to answer what is said in the
brief with reference to the common
law doctrine of contempt as modi- |
fed by the statute law of this State |