The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-05-01
awarded n ID
IN $4,000 SUIT
Bedford Gets Only Fraction Of
Large Sum Claimed From
]. Henry. Miller, Inc.
COURT TAKES ISSUE WITHLAW
fudge Waddill Files Personal
Opinion Questioning Justice
is . of Recent Decisions.
COURT TAKES ISSUE WITH.LAW

Under instructions from Judge Wad-
sutlI, holding that the law as 1t has
;Sbeen Interpreted I'm similar cases. bar
:Sred the right OF the plaintiff to re-
+. ( cover cover, the jury In the United States
District Court yesterday. awarded a.
&C, Bedford. OF this city. s3.51G.3o as a
full settlement of mis- $4,000 suit
against j. Henry Miller, Inc, of Balti-
more.
rs The trial OF the case occupied the
a a,.lon or the court since last Fri
ssday attorneys for both sides waging
stubborn fight. Two DAYS were con
sumed In argument over instructions
4 TO the jury. Judge Nunsford L. Lewis
ana Hill Carter. of Richmond, and w.
{ Hail Harris. of Baltimore appeared
i for the defendant, and Emmett seaton
and Charles V. Meredith argued the
case for Bedford
The action was brought by Bedford
10 compel j. Henry Miller, Inc to pay
over $4,000 which the latter With
held on the ground that the plaintir
yyor contract which bound him to
deliver certain quantities of granite
8 within stipulated twelve month ne
Rod or forfeit $50 day for delay.
Miller was general contractor in
charge OF the construction of the Rich
mono post office. and Bedford sub
contracted 10 supply the granite need
ed for the building
Claimed Contract Not binding.
The fight conferred about the instruc-
tons to jury. An Instruction for the
plafntiff was asked by Bedford's law
sers on the ground that the defen-
s{nant had not set forth specifically tho
actual damage II had suffered by the
delay in the delivery of the granite.
and that In the absence of proof of any
damage at all. that clause of the con-
tract which provided for the $50 n day
~ should he. ac1 II "a
an award made commensurate with
tine actual damage suffered
The defense asked for an opposite
instruction relying chiefly on the ex-
pltcit language OF the contract
The burden is on tho plaintiff to
make out his claim to recover on hts
: original contract and for extrasr;
Judge Waddill instructed the jury yes
terday morning, ''and upon the defen-
dant TO establish the extent OF the
offsets including the number of days
{ delay. on account OF which latter item.
the court instructs YOU that the said
defendant Is entitled to recover the
( sum OF $4,000 being for 3s2 calen-
OAR days at the rate OF $50 day.
Takes Issue with Law.
While holding that according to the
strict construction OF the law tho de-
PENDANT company IS entitled to clairi,
the seton covering the time Of delay
and that the plaintiff cannot recover.
Judge Waddill filed a personal state
{ rnent taking the position. that a set
Element on the basis OF ascertained
damages would have been fairer. on
this point Judge Waddill said
1t may not be Rniss perhaps for
the court To say that personally it
considers 1t would be fairer and more
reasonable in this class OF cases. to
treat the sum specified as compensation
for delays, the maximum amount
Tor which recovery could be had on
that account and TO have a judicial
asccrtainment of what damages had
been sustained, and should be recover
ed, limited In amount by the sum named
lin the contract. This. however. does
not seem TO be the law. particularly
as settled by the more recent decisions.
including those of appellate courts,
which this court should follow