Arizona republican., 1909-05-09
4 LIBERAL JURY
 OVERSHOT THE MARK ALMOST MADE MlSTRlAL OF GRANT BROS. DAMAGE SUIT. Returned An Award Exceeding the
 Amount Asked For.

The jury in the damage suit Of Grant Bros. Construction company against the Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix railroad by it's intense desire to do the right thing by the plaintiff nearly let the three days work and eX- pense of the trial go for nothing by finding for the plaintiff a verdict of S100 more than was asked for
 In the complaint the plaintiff put a value of S9.O61 on the goods and equip ment destroyed by the burning of four box cars on a siding west of the A X c. junction on the morning of June 6. 1907. As a result of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff as to the value of the property it was estimated that it was worth S9,161S7 and that sum was mentioned frequently in the course of the testimony and the argu- ments The value placed on it by the defense was a little less than S5000.
 Judge Kent in delivering his in- structions evidently supposed that the jury might be inclined to go the limit and he defined it as the amount asked for in the complaint
 When the verdict was read, showing that the plaintiff had been awarded S9.161S7, Judge Baker of the counsel for the plaintiff was on his feet Mir. Van Kirk one of the attorneys for the defense asked that the jury be polled. Judge Baker suggested that he Had something to say and he went on to say that there had been an error which must be corrected. In the hurried ar gument which followed it was made known to the jury where the mistake was and it might have been corrected in the subsequent polling though it was not.
 Several of the members of the jury explained their votes" One of them said that he was aware of the in structions of the court but so much had been said about S9.161S7 that the jury was of the opinion that the court had been mistaken.
 The case had reached a point where there was nothing to do but to dis charge the jury with a verdict worth less than the small piece of paper on which it was written.
 Judge Baker and MT Dockweiler for the plaintiff believed that it was not yet too late for the jury to correct the verdict Messrs. Van Kirk. Burks and Chalmers for the railroad company knew of on statute under which the correction could be made and the court stated that he was unaware of any.
 The statutes do provide for the cor rection of verdicts after they have been returned to the court in certain cases. For instance. if there has been an error in the computation of inter est; if the verdict is defective only in form or if it is not responsive to the | issues But this verdict did not come ! under either of those classes of defect 1 i've verdicts.
 Thus the enthusiasm of the jury had set several eminent attorneys to study | ing law again. The jury was directed to remain in the box and the court and attorneys adjourned to the judges chambers where the matter was gone over. As a result of the researches there conducted the conclusion was reached that the case would have to be tried over again unless the attorneys for the defense would consent to a cor rection of the verdict.
 That consent was then given. the verdict was returned to the jury which reduced the amount of it's award to the figures asked for in the complaint The court subsequently, cOmplimented the i attorneys for the defense on their mag 1 nanimity in providing this way out of | a difficulty The chief contention of the defense l throughout the trial was that it was | carrying the equipment of the plaintiff ! in the capacity of a private carrier un- | der a contract into which both parties 1 had entered on an equal footing and !