Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1913-05-08
No CAUSE Of ACTION
,ludde Searl Directs Verdict In Hug
gett VS.. z. NJ. R. K. Case
NOT PERMITTED TO GO TO JURY
.IuduelSearrs Charge Given In Full-ln Courts
opinion Child TrespaSSer

The case of Eva Huggett VS.. the
p NJ. r. r. Co., which was on trlal
in the Circuit court OF Gratiot coun-
~ last week attracted considerable
attention. The attorneys tor tle
plaintiff. Messrs. Kress and Dunham,
and Hon. Geo. p. Stone, presented
evidence that the child, who was only
two wears and eight months OLD, Win
another small child, was on the L. NJ
r r tracks at the Park avenue cross
mo when the Grand Rapids hyer
went through According to Wit
nesses the engineer and fireman, IN
stead of looking ahead, were both
looking south and did not see the
children. .slacken their speed nor DloW
the whistle and the Huggett child
was run over, her arm cut OF ana her
face and body badly hurt. Notwitr-
standing all the evidence gwen, Judge
Searle claimed that as the child was
between two crossings and not on
crossing the jury should render a
verdict of no cause OF action.
Messrs. Kress and Durham state
that the case will be carried imme-
diately to the Supreme Court.
Following we give Judge Searie
charge:
Gentlemen OF the Jury, the Court
after spending considerable time over
this matter that we were discussing
last night. of the law i'll this case, has
reached the conclusion that there is
no question here to be submitted TO
Won in this case This may not, and
probably will not, agree with your
idea of what the law ought to be.
This Court does not sit here to deter
mine what the law ought TO be, but
simply TO determine what it is.
Now. the doctrine is well settled IN
this state, although Michigan perhaps
does not agree with many other
states, that trainmen operating a
train owe no duty to a trespasser up
on the track, except not to run him
down after they have discovered him
or are apprised of the fact that he is
upon the track. If they know that
the person is on the track, no matter
where he is, it is their duty then to
use everv possible effort not to in
lure the party, the trespasser. lhe
law is also we'll settled in Michigan
that child even of the age OF this
child is technically a trespasser tor
the purposes OF these kind OF cases,
so putting those doctrines together,
after examining all the authorities IN
this state, all the cases, the Court has
reached the conclusion that If he
should submit this case to you, 1t
would simply result in the Supreme
Court reversing the case.
We had the same question up here
some years ago in a case where a
man was killed on the Ann Arbor
railroad east of Ashley. The ident-
ical question was up, and the proof
there, as here, showed that the track
was travelled quite extensively by
people who went back and forth along
the line. The presiding Judge at that
time held, and ! concluded afterwards
i was in the case-that he held cor
rectly that there could be no recovery
even though there had been consid-
erable travel along the track. Our
court have said that when the rail-
road companies post UP signs telling
people that they must not trespass,
that they have performed their duty
and that they are not obliged to keep
a man there to drive the trespassers
off. 1t is also the settled rule in this
state that party injured by reason
OF trespassing upon the track-in fact
any party, except where about to
cross the track, cannot sue the rail-
road company for failure to give the
signals at the crossing In recent
case this question came up, and our
Supreme Court reviewed the matter
very thoroughly and determined that
the signals were only for those about
to cross the track. Therefore ! am
unable to submit the matter to you
upon the question of the failure to
give a signal at this street crossing.
There is no law that requires rail
road to give a signal at city street
crossing, but it would be their duty
probably in this case to give signal
at this crossing, it being a crossing
that was dangerous and travelled a
great deal, but the difficulty about
that is that this child is not one of a
class that is entitled to take advan-
tage of their failure to give signal.
If the child had been injured upon
the crossing, there would be no ques-
ton but what there would be a case
to go to you under the evidence as it
stands here
There are some cases in this state;
one known as the Narcotic case in
the 41st, 47th and 49th of Michigan
which apparently support the plain