The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1905-10-25

why dld we nO6 make coLllileli
adversely on a $1,000 verdlc'
rendered against the same per
sonal friend" in the same court
prosecuted by the same Captain
Davis, in favor Of another negro
who was hurt while working OF
the same railroad?
No, Captain Davis, we endeav
or to lay aside personal prefer
ence when we write an opinion
on the verdict of a jury, or any
other matter affecting the pubic
welfare.
The Illustration, of a clerk IL
a store getting into controver
sy with customer, is parable
with the Fielder case. Accord
ing to the sworn testimony which
we heard, showed that Captain
Davis client applied an offensive
epithet to Mr.. Stukes, the depo'
agent, growing out of a con
troversy about freight, the agent
struck this client: but, says Cap
tain Davis: I'm the Fielder case
the railroad employee brings or
the difficulty yes, that IS what
his client claims, but we hearo
Mr. Stukes. the depot agent:
swear, and his veracity was not
Questioned, that Captain Davis
client brought on the difficulty
by his insolence and insulting
language. AS for US, We prefer
to believe Mr.. Stukes. possibly,
if we were making a fee from
the other side it might be other.
wise. But then: let it be argued
that Stukes brought on the trou,
BILE, it seems to US to be more in
keeping with ''absolute justice
and reason, for the case to have
been brought on the crimina!
side of the court on a charge OF
assault and battery against
Stukes, and then if the evidence
conficted, the jury could judge
whether to believe Stukes OF
Fielder. If the latter was be
lieved, a verdict of guilty could
have been entered against
Stukes and fine or imprison
ment would have been his pun
ishment, but on the crimina.
side there are no money damage
verdicts, and this makes a differ.
ence, of course.
We did not hear the Judges
charge, but on inquiry we learn
that His Honor did not utter a
word which justified the jury to
construe his charge into mean
ing that an employer is to be
held in money damages because
an employee resents a personal
insult, in the nature of-vile cpl
thets, tho, the controversy grew
out of the employers business
The verdict in this case was
surprise to many, and we thinb
we can count Captain Davis
among them. The Captain is
happily endowed with a persona
magnetism, and possibly, on this
jury he had personal admirers:
who, in turn were also possessed
with magnetism. The Captains
magnetism Influenced his ad
mirers and they Influenced theil
fellow jurymen who were moi
anxious for a deadlock, ano
viewing a railroad corporation
without a soul to save, or a neck
to break, came to the conclusion:
to get out of the room, a little
leg pulling would not cripple the
railroad. In fact, we have heard.
it was argued in the room thai
the railroad was rich, and if the
niger" got some of its money
nobody would be harmed.
The danger of such verdicts
where juries fail to distinguish
the difference between an EN-.
ployee acting for his employer
in the scope of his duties, and the
employee resenting a apersonal in
suit, is so great, that If the Yer.
dict in this case holds, the dam.
age suit law practice will greatly
increase. and corporations anc
private industries will be in con
Slant danger of writ-service.
AS to Captain Wilson's inter
view, it speaks for itself, and i
is not necessary that we should
go over it. When first approach
ed by US, he was in no mood tc
treat with for concessions be
cause of what he regarded ar
antagonism towards his interests
in this verdict for $500. The
$1,000 verdict did not seem tx
arouse his resentment, but he
regarded the 5000 verdict so pal
pably unjust that it made hin
sore. However, before the in
terview ended, he intimated thai
he would consider a business
proposition from the citizens 0:
Manning.
Lack of space prevents ou]
going into full details to answer
Captain Davis, and we will con
clude by saying. that it is to his
pecuniary interests to "see the
fallaciousness Of" our 'sargu
ments, and it might possibly::bt
of service to him in earning hi:
fee if he can convince our read
els that we have attempted tc
''sway" them by our ';appeals tt
IN \ ~