The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-04-10
ROTOLO VERDICT
. UPHELD BY COURT I.
Norfolk Man Injured in Street
Car Accident Awarded
$4,000 Damages.
RAILROAD CASE DECIDED
Company Not Exempt When In
jured Employe Accepted Bene-
fit-Other Opinions.
RAILROAD CASE DECIDED

Damage In the sun, Of $4,000 award
ed to Frank Rotolo. OF Norfolk. by the
Circuit Court OF that city. following
q suit against tho Norfolk and Allan
Ito Terminal Company. was affirmed
yesterday by the United States Circuit
Court OF Appeals The court convened
yesterday morning for It's April ses-
sion with Circuit Judge Nathan Con,
of Clarksburg. W. Va; District Judge|
Edmund Waddill, Jr. OF Richmond.
and District Judge James q. Boyd. Of
Greensboro. n. c., in attendance.
1t was the third time that tho Rotolo
i case was before this court. In both
/ OF the former appeals the Court of Ap-
peals reversed the Judgment of tho
lower court awarding damages to the
plaintif. The litigation grew out OF
an accident I'm fronJ of the ..ionticello
| Hotel In Norfolk, on April /, 1907,
when Rotolo received injuries while
attempting to board one of the defen-
dant company's cars. which made ne
cessary the amputation OF q leg. In
the last trial he was awarded $4,000
damages with interest from November
%. 1911.
Exceptions overrulcd.
The Norfolk and Atlantic Terminal
Company in It's petition to tho Circuit
Court OF Appeals took exception to-
the admission over It's objection OF tes-
timony seeking to establish the fact
that the companys cars were in the
habit Of stopping at tho point
where Rotolo was injured. The
company asserted that there was no
stop at that particular place, and that
the plaintiffs claim for damages ought
to be barred on tho ground of concur
rent negligence.
The court of last resort held that the
i evidence as to the customary stopping
place of the defendants cars was ad-
| INVISIBLE. and not, as the company
claimed, Irrelevant and lrnmaterial to
the issue in this case" on this point
the court quoted text-writers 10 the
effect that customs may. like other
facts and circumstances, be shown
when their existence will increase or
diminish probabilities of ar act hav-
Ing been done, or not done. which act
Is the subject of contest"
Detroit Company Loses.
In the case Of the Detroit Steel
Cooperage Company against the sis,
tersville Brewing Company. of Sisters
vile, W. We. in which the former sued
Tor the possession OF thirteen chip
tanks furnished to the brewery tho
Judgment of the Circuit Court at
Wheeling, denying the claim OF the
cooperase company, WAS affirmed. The
1890. %bcAilISN tue ElSHt OF q prefer
ence in the distribution Of tho assets
OF the bankrupt brewery on the ground
that the contract under which the
tanks We're furnished contained clauses
reserving to the cocperage company
the title to the tanks until tho full
purchase price was paid.
The tanks We're sold and Installed
In August, 1905. In December. 1906, the
Sistersville Brewery Company exc.
cutcd deed OF trust mortgaging the
property of the plant TO secure new
$4,000 issue OF bonds. The cooperage
compan ny claimed that tho tanks were
exempt from the application of the
deed of trust but the Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that as soon az they
were installed they became fixtures
: and, as such, part OF the realty. and
subject TO the prior claim of the mort
sage. The Detroi, company claimed a
: balance Of s453l.I5.
Finn Gets $4,000.
The Judgment OF the Circuit Court
at Charleston, S c., awarding p p.
Finn $4,000 damages for injuries re-
ceived ut the hands OF the Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad. was affirmed. Finn
was injured near Gainesville S. G..
on November II, 1905. and brought suit
t December 81, 1910. He was awarded
$4,000. and the railroad company ap-
pealed on the ground that the plaIntiT
was member OF the relief department
OF the company, and by the act OF &C
a cepting its benefits released the de-
a PENDANT from responsibility for all al
: legged damages.
5, In Its opinion yesterday the court
!, sustained the validity OF an act Of the
South Carolina Leg stature OF March I,
s 1907. regulating the responsibility of
railroad companies, which makes mem
bershp in relief associations under
railroad supervision no bar to recoy-
cry. Firms contract with the Atlantic
Coast Line, as member of its relief de-
partment. the court held. constituted
no estoPpcl TO his right TO recover.
Opinions Announced.
Court announced and handed down
it's opinion in the following cases:
q No. 1857 Atlantic Coast Line Rail
: road Company. plaintiff in error. VS..
h p. p. Finn, defendant in error; in
g error to the Circuit Court at Charles
n ton. S. c. Opinion by Judge Pritch-
c ard. Affirmed, with costs.
No. 1881. Detroit Steel Cooperag
~ Company appellant, vs. Sistcrsvillc
= Brewing Company ct al, appeilces
y appeal from the Circuit Court at
+, wheeling. w. Va Opinion by Judge
Boyd. Affirmed, with costs.
. No. 1856, The norfolk & Atlantic
Terminal Company. plaintim in error
vs.. Frank Rotolo, defendant In error;
4 In error to the Circuit Court at Nor
folk Va Opinion by Judge Boyd.
4 Affirmed. with costs.
4 A motion to vacate and dismiss the
i supersedeas was made and argued in
the following case:
y No. 1906. Emma Jane Kirkpatrick
q appellant. vs.. HARRIET Elizabeth Nc
& Bride, appellee; appeal from the dis.
4 tr'ct Court at Wheeling W. Va. Mo-
III Af ..le