The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1906-12-28
REHEARING DENIED
IN MASTERS0N CASE
Supreme Court Curtly Returns Motion
and Brief to Attorneys and
Strikes Case from Docket

25, 1902, Thomas NJ Masterson of
Doe Run, with his family. were in ST.
Louis, and on that date their little
son, Thomas A. Masterson, started
across the street, and a street car,
running at high rate of speed, struck
the child and dragged 1t 80 feet before
the car could be stopped, killing him
instantly Mr. Masterson instituted
suit against the St Louis Transit com
pany, but by the ruling of the trial
court the jury's verdict was for the
defendant company. Mr.. MastersOn
appealed, aud bis attorneys, Barclay,
Shields Il Fountleroy, made a vigorous
argument, but the Supreme Court, by
Judge Valiant, sustained the trial
courts ruling. Plaintiffs attorneys
filed a motion for a hearing, which
contained the following.
"Masterson VS.. St. Louis Transit
Company; motion for rehearing
stricken from files; motion aud brief
ordered returned to counsel for APP
pellapt"
Following the receipt of this order,
the clerk of the court at once bundled
up the motion and briefs and sent the
same to the attorneys for Masterson.
Excerpts from the brief follows:
Appellants are law abiding Mis-
sourians, who live in this State at
Doe Run, St. Francois County, and
consider themselves grossly outraged
by what they deem a reckless disre-
gard of law on the part OF defendant,
By which they lost their little boy,
about IL years of age, while visiting
friends in st. Louis,
"The counsel believe they have a
meritorious case, and have submitted
to this honorable court two briefs, in
which they direct the attention of the
court to a number of decisions sup
porting their assignments of error in
the record of the trial below, before II
special jury, and his Honor, Judge
Bleyins.
.'Not one OF our citations has ever
been mentioned in the opinion filed
herein by Judge Valiant. We have
been engaged in legal work 10 various
forms 10 this State Tor number of
years. We believe ourselves entitled
to respectful treatment by the courts
before which we appear. We endeavor
to accord to those courts all respect
due TO their worth ana learning. We
would like to be informed whether all
the members of the court deem il
proper and appropriate, in case like
this, to ignore and pass over without
comment, every decision we have
cited supporting the vital and decisive
propositions we advanced.
"Some of these propositions or points
have not been touched upon in the
remotest manner, in the opinion OF
Judge Valiant. Others of the points
have been misinterprcted and parried
by arguments, which seem to US, witt
all respect. far from convincing. Ge
others of our points are disposed OF il
way to override long lines OF de
cisions on fundamental rules of test
mony in daily use.
"The purpose oi this motion is Il
ask each and every member of thi
court to reconsider that mode of treat
ing our briefs and our effort to preseu
some arguments which we believ
worthy OF attention, on account, q
least, of the judicious utterances b
which they are sustained.
"We have no apology for this mo
ton for a rehearing of this appeal, 70
we are convinced as firmly, as of an
. legal proposition we know, that Judg
Valliant's opinion herein, which put
t an end to plaintiffs demand again'
Q the Transit Company, has failed
Q give due weight to our points and Al
guments in several vital particular
aud points. We are aware that tn
I court is overworked, yet who wi
deny that correctness in expoundin
b the law is quite as essential as is tn
Z dispatch of business?
''In q case like this at bar, whic
involves the rules Of law to govern th
conduct of carrier of passengers UP
5 on the public streets OF the largest cit
Q 10 Missouri, it is a grave duty of an
I court to be careful, yes, to exercis
the highest degree of care"
The brief is quite lengthy. Man
of the sentences and parts of sentence
| are printed 10 heuvy black type, an
in one place on index hand is used t