Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1906-11-24

when the testimony for the plaintiff
had been submitted, the attorneys for
the defendant filing demurrer TO the
evidence. The case was brought TO
the circuit court from Justice Felker's
Office on appeal Of the defendant. Sew
eral months ago, MIR. Brown, farmer
residing about five. miles west OF the
city, was returning home. and when at
a crossing over the Baltimore & Ohio
road, a short distance west of town,
his horse became frightened at the
smoke coming from the engine of
passing freight train. The animal ran
away, throwing Mr.. Brown to the
ground and severely injuring him, and
breaking up the wagon and injuring
the animal,
Mr.. Brown entered suit In Justice
Felker's court for $500 damages. The
first trial resulted in a hung jury. and
the second resulted in a verdict of SCI
and costs for the plaintiff. The case
was thereupon appealed to the circuit
court.
The action of the attorneys for the
defendant in demurring to the evil
dence in effect stopped the case at
once, with the understanding that the
jury should award the foil amount of
damages to Mr. Brown, subject to the
decision of Judge Faulkner. The de-
PENDANT contends that the evidence
was insufficient to warrant a verdict III
favor of the plaintiff, and Judge Faux
ner will now pass upon this point. It
is expected that, no matter what the
decision of the court NAV be, the case
will be taken to the supreme court of
the state.
Argued Motion.
The case against A. Eoplin and s.
w Koplin, merchants at Harpers Fer
ry, who were indicted year ago in
the(Berkeley circuit court on charge
of false swearing, and which has been
postponed from term to term since
that time, finally came to trial and
excited d great deal of interest.
AS will be remembered the case grew
out of an attachment suit brought by
| the Koplins against II. n Jenkins, an
engineer on the Valley branch of the
Baltimore & Ohio, the Koplins claim
/ ing that Jenkins owed them a bill of
| $55 for goods puprchased from them
/ on June 2, 1904 Jenkins denied that
| ne owed the bill and claimed that ne
/ had not been in Harpers Ferry since
| December, 1903. He also declared that
the day he was charged with buying
| the goods he was on his run between
! Stanton and Lexington, and the mem
! bers of his train crew were brought
| forward to substantiate this claim. He
also produced his time Slip, showing
that he was at work mere than 100
miles from Harpers Ferry on the day
! in question.
Jenkins appeared before the Berkc.
| ley county grand jury -ear ago, and
as a result the grand jury returned an
| indictment for false swearing.
The defense put forward the claim
that the goods had been purchased on
the day set forth, and that the attach
ment suit grew out of the refusal OF
| Jenkins to liquidate the claim. They
declare that the bill is a just one.
An Interesting Suit.
The most interesting suit of the ses-
sion so far was that CT w. A. Baker
against the estate of the late j. Hem
! Weidman, which was taken up We'd
nesday afternoon On an appeal from
the decision of jury in the court of
Justice Thompson. Mr.. Baker is sum ;
the estate to recover the sum of
St2375, alleged TO be due him for
work performed during the last six
months of Mr. Weidman's life, he hav-
ing been employed to 40 work about
the place and also to take care OF
! Mr.. Weidman. who was old, and whose
mental condition was such that he re-
/ quired constant attention.
The jury in the justice court award
4 ed Mr.. Baker certain sum for his
services, but the executor of the estate
appealed to the circuit court.
The man whose estate was involved
in the suit resided near Gerardstown
and when he was found dead one day
behind his barn ii was discovered that
he had made a will leaving all his
property to a certain home in Wash
ington. An effort was made to break
the will on the ground that the tesla
tor was not of sound mind, but this
failed Later Mr.. Baker instituted
suit TO recover rs cents per day for
1865 days, no provision having been
4 made in the will TO pay this charge
The suit was contested on the ground
that the charge was excessive, in view
of the nature of the services perform
ed
. The testimony was decidedly inter
esting, as showing the wide difference
of opinion held by different men re
garding the pay for services such as
performed by Mr. Bakcr. Witnesses
for the plaintiff thought the charge
very low, several declaring they would
: not have performed the services for
$3.50 per day, and others that 81 would
!. not have been too much. On the Other
hand, witnesses for the defense de
, clared that $40 to s14 per month was
! a reasonable charge, leaving the jury
: to draw its own conclusions and fix 4
} sum between the two extremes.
The jury was not long ia reaching Z
| decision, returning to the court room
: with a verdict of the full amount ask
/ ed by the plaintiff, less about s12, the
amount of a note given by Baker a.
, the sale of personal effects of Mr.
, Weidman.
) Prisoners Arraigned.
William Welty, under indictment or