The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1906-03-16
RAISES QUESTION
ABOUT A JURORS
QUALIFICATIONS

The case OF Antonio Di Stefano VS..
Rhode Island company was argued In the
supreme court today on defendants bill
OF exceptions. This is an action or the
case for damages for personal Injuries TO
the plaintiff caused by the sudden start
ing up OF an electric car, while the plain
tiff was upon the running board and the
car was slowing down TO permit him 10
alight. whereby he was thrown from the
car TO the ground and badly injured.
A jury awarded the plaintiff s725 dam
ages This verdict the defendant says was
against the law and the evidence as 1t
claims plaintiff jumped off fast moving
car.
Counsel for defendant sought TO lay con-
siderable force on this proposition that
George w. Bennett, "A member OF the
Jury before whom said case was tried,
was not duly qualified to serve as such
Juror, he not having been drawn by the
board OF aldermen OF the c.ty Ia which
he resided TO serve as juror in the year
during which said trial Of said case was
had, OF which fact this defendant was
ignorant at the time when the jury i'm this
case was empannelled, but which fact be-
came known 10 the defendant during the
trial of this case, and upon its obtaining
such knowledge the fact was Immediately
made known by IL TO the presiding jus
tice. with the suggestion that the case be
taken from the jury. or that this juror be
taken from the panel and the trial pro-
ceed with II Jurors
Arcording TO affidavits filed George w.
Bennett. Jr.. was the party drawn as a
juror and the city clerk substituted the
name OF George w. Bennett. The qualifl-
cation OF this same Bennett is in dis
| pute also in another case
The counsel that tried the case In the
Z superior court were John 1. Devln, rep
4 a. slf
| liams representing the defendant. Accord
| ing 10 Henry w. Hayes senior counsel for
| the traction Interests hereabouts he really
| took a hand In the trial I'm the superior
| court When he, Hayes. ascertained that
| Bennett was not qualified he went to the
| Justice presiding at the trial and told the
Justice about Bennett. Mr.. Hayes said in
! court today that the justice said he had
| heard OF the matter from the clerk but
had decided 10 let the case go right along
Chief Justice Douglas said that n mo-
| ton might have been made or objection
taken so that the plaintiff might then and
| there have had an opportunity TO answer.
Mr. Devlin here said that he knew moth
| ing of the Interview OF Mr.. Hayes with
the court and nothing of che objection 10
Bennett as a Juror. An examination Of
| the bill OF exceptions showed Bennett
| was not mentioned therein nor any refer
| ence made TO Mr. Hayes extra work
Chief Justice Douglas said as there was
no exception taken to the action or ruling
OF the court below the point was not in
volved In the case at present. Mr.. Hayes
| thought II was n matter the court should
| take notice OF at any time.
The opinion OF the court seemed to be
| that Mr. Benefits disqualification should
have been taken properly before the lower
| court by counsel. Mr. Devlin submitted
the case on the main points involved and
though offering IL given time to produce
authorities on the juror Bennett's quail.
| fcation he was not required to so do