The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1910-06-07

brakeman and conductor for
teen years, had no other seven
and had been ea-rr
from sixty to ninety-fve douars
month On November i. 1900 ~
months after the Safety Appliance ,.
had gone into effect. tba NJ. A-.
racine RAILWAY Company was -s.r,
in its salt traffic, cars the co,,lI1
when Q not couple, and Er.rl.
meier IN consequence had his r.,hr ..
smashed. -
The usual results have followed
The case has come before tba g."
preme Court of Kansas four times.
comes up about every two wears lrj
its latest appearance was earlv =
November, 1909. The decisions -
the lower courts have varied from
the award to the injured brakeman
Of $500 damages to the opinion
that, since the Z must have been n
the proper condition when new and
nobody had reported it out Of order
and the brakeman had not resigned
his position on discovering that some
thing was wrong, therefore il was al
the brakesman's fault and the rail-
road is entitled to recover from him
= L Do5oc ~ - NliA- A1 ID = SAN
for the impartiality Of the courts. if
Brinkmeier, after nine years Of costly
litigation, has not recovered d penny
of his $500 for his leg, neither has
the railroad received any part Of its
s113.75 costs"
Here is another object lesson show
ing how Mrs. Thomas Kane waited
more than nine years for damages for
the death of her husband, a fireman
who was killed on the Erie Railroad:
"Juries are p~roVerbially tender
hearted toward widows in cases Of
this kind, and in the trial court Mrs.
Kane received a verdict of 81 600. The
Erie Railroad promptly took the ease
to the Circuit Court Of Appeals. On
August IS. 1902-fve years after
Fireman Kane's death-th!s tribunal
set aside the $4,000 verdict and or
dered a new trial. The fireman
widow appealed to the higher Federal
court. This time justice moved with
comparative rapidity, for eight months
later. in December, 1904. the C1Tcult
Court of Appeals handed down an
other decision, this time in MIS-.
Kane's favor. It awarded her no
damages, Of course: il merely decided
that the verdict OF the lower court
was not in accordance with the law
and the facts, and therefore set i
aside.
"On her third appearance in the
trial court, however, Mrs. Kane re-
ceived summary treatment JudN'
Cochran refused to let the case 20 10
the jury, directing q verdict IN laF,I
of the Erie Railroad. A2paFehdy
nothing could discourage the 'odohI-
liable Mrs. Kane, for she promptly "P-
pealed the case. Justice RIchardS 81.
aside the verdict and ordered a ne"
trial. And now, for the fouTlh nm
Kane started the litigation I'D LIZ
trial court. This time she Won. ~
the Erie Railroad again apIea,@l.
The decision rendered by the hIgae.
court on June 26, 1907, shows ina.
the case was getting on the "'-l's
Of the learned justices. -
case has now been here four 'f-'7,
the opinion read. There must DE- 80
end Of litigation It decided 'A
of Mrs. Kane. The eV~eT-pai.tA' b.
Railroad, however, was stun .'-7' "a
fed, and hailed Mrs. Kane he,"Lf 80
Supreme Court Of the JhA-~4 9'a'. =,
1t was not until this body refuse"
interfere with the verdict lH~' r,a
corporation accepted the -'''t 49,,
and paid the claim some -h'
II. 1907
In recent years in North '.'
the delays have not been 50 -.@ lar9
and these cases are hsara .as-er
promptly and sounder laws and - .<-.
administration of Justl9' I'D ~
such miscarriages as the two ne
Mr.. Gitterman, but the st"T- o.ra~r
James case in which the Ed
Railway by the grace Of faE"r1.- me
aral Judges. did almost as "a1 g. ms
object lessons cited shows ura one
evil has been a real ana
right here in North CaTo-H-a-