The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1909-05-20
CIVIL COURT.
CONTINUED from ist pagel

the Sugarloaf crossing, providing
he passenger paid two fares to
Laubachs, the station beyond.
After she had boarded the train
John Bunting, who was acting as
came into the car and
she handed him some money, stat
ing that she desired to get off at
Sugarloaf crossing. He replied all
right, and took out a full fare and |
half fare for che of the girls to
Laubach's. When the train reach
ed Sugarloaf it was dark, and she
noticed that the train was not 60
ing TO stop She told a passenger
to tell Scott, the conductor, that
she was to have been left off at the
crossing. He replied that he knew
nothing of it, and it was too late
now, and she would have to go on
to Laubach's. Bunting had left
the train at Benton. Arriving at
Laubach's she refused to get off
the train, but Scott insisted that
she must do so. The children
were lifted off and finally she left
the train. 1t was dark and rainy
and she had basket and bundle
to carry. The station was with
out light or agent. Finally young
man appeared, and inquiring where
she was going, loaned her his Ian
tern and told her the best way was
down the track, and she had gone
a distance of about 200 yards, her
foot caught in switch rod and she
fell, injuring her knee. The dis
tance from Larbach's to where she
was going is about two-thirds of
mile and it took her two hours to
get there, owing to her fall. They
would show the ligaments had been
torn and that the injury was per-
manent, and prevented her from
doing her work.
Most of these allegations were
sworn to by Mrs. Reimard on the
witness stand. A number of wit
nesses were called for the plaintiff.
Before opening OF the defense in
the case Mr.. Harman moved the
Court for compulsory non suit,
stating reasons therefor.
Court then adjourned until Mon
day morning, when argument on
the motion was heard. The court
refused the motion.
Mr.. Waller opened the case for
the defendant and said that before
the plaintiffs can recover damages
they must show that the defendant
has been guilty Of negligence, and
that it has not been guilty of con-
tributory negligence in doing what
it should not have done, or in fail
ing to do what it should have done
under the circumstances. The de-
fense in this suit was three fold.
First, they would show that the
railroad company had not been
guilty of negligence or carelessness.
Second, that Mrs. Reimard had
been guilty of contributory negli
geuce in walking down the track
of the railroad company when there
was public road near by which
led past her destination.
Third, that the alleged injury to
her knee was not the result of her
falling upon the track on the even
ing of Nov. 25, 1907, and that she
was not strong and healthy prior to
the accident as she testified. They
would prove that prior to the al
legged accident Mrs. Reimard had a |
running sore upon her left limb
above the knee, and Mrs. Brad
Long advised her not to work in
the garden as it might produce
blood poisoning.
They would also prove that the
evidence did not correspond with
the declaration or statement filed
when the snit was brought.
A number of witnesses were eX-
amined in support of the allega-
tions made by the defense. On
Monday morning after arguments
of counsel and the charge of the
court the jury retired. and at about
7. 80 in the evening returned ver-
dict of $4,000 for Mrs. Reimard,
aud SroO for her husband A mo-