Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1910-06-28

trict court yesterday denied the mo-
ton for a new trial in the case
of Frederick A. Knock versus the
Tonopah and Goldfield railroad. The
motion was made by the defendant
company after Knock had secured
judgment for $25,OvO for damages
in the employ of the company.
Just what step the railroad COM
pany will take now is problematical
but it is assured that every legal
phrase will be used to avoid pay
ing the sum which has been award
ed the plaintiff for the corpora
ton has adverse ideas concerning
the expenditure of money along
these lines. The ruling of Judge
Averill is as follows:
After careful consideration of the
grounds of motion for new trial
in the above entitled case, and the
argument thereon, / find that only
five require discussion in connection |
with this ruling.
1. The constitutionality of the
law of this state quoted in plain
tiff's instruction No. IA.
2. New evidence.
5. The alleged improper con-
duct of juryman just following
the discharge of the jury after ver-
dict.
4. Alleged improper conduct of
Attorney Cole and Juryman Smith.
5. The alleged improper re-
marks of Attorney Cole in his
address to the jury.
Referring to the first of these
there can be no doubt that If the
trolled it would be seriously OBJ
iectionable. but it was allowed to
stand alone in this case, and rep
resented very small part of the
law of the case. Other instrue-
lions of both the plaintiff and the
defendan, so modified it that no
juryman could possibly have ae-
cepted it alone as the law of the
case. or in fact give it enough at
tention to do any injury. The
courts instruction No. IA calls at
tention of the jury to the fact that
no one instruction contains all the
law of the case; they were told
to consider all the instructions to-.
gether. 1t is the duty of the de-
PENDANT to offer instructions as Will
complete those of the plaintih
wherein they do not fully cover the
law, so that it may all be before
them, and no advantage may be
taken of the defendant, besides
which the latter may offer such in
structions as will present those
features of the law relied upon by
him. All this was thoroughly and
we'll done 1t may be noted here
that only one instruction offered by
the defendant was rejected, No. 10,
and for the reason that it was
clearly inconsistent with others
from the same source.
The new evidence offered is null
lifted by a counter affidavit. also
by the fact that the exact wording
of the admission is not given, and
would, therefore, on re-trial OF the
case, be open to sharp attack on
cross examination to get the exact
words. In the great mass of evil
dence in this case it would not IN
it's present form be sufficient 10
constitute the turning point OF the
case. as it would be opposed to ana
contradicted by tn whole theory OF
tho nlaintiff's case and the evidence
adduced in support thereon the
iurv would still be left in the posi-
tion in which the jury was lett
as TO which theory, that OF the
plaintiff or that of the defendant
would be the one supported by the
evidence taken as a whole
The remark of Jurymah tna'
the plaintiff would have received d
verdict even more favorable mao
he asked for more does not seem
IN me to be a very serious matter
suppose that in every persona
injury case. where the plaintin is
the victor. some juror reefs 'ha'
the plaintiff should have had
q, better verdict than he got; "ha'
difference does it make If the jury
man so feels and says so? IL may
he sincere expression OF his oplh-
ion of the situation. In TINS CON
nectlon the objection is made 'ha'