The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-10-17
THE FARMER: OCTOBER IT, 1913

spooky phantoms and strange appari-
 tions rising as the Inists arise.'' All
 this we do not doubt. Dear Shades,
 forgive! However, coming back to
 plaintiffs husband, we find a case in
 point. The story is this: He was l insured for $2, COO His wife was the beneficiary. In 1893 he died, and plain tiff sure enough buried him. Now
 to get that $2,00O, thought plaintiff. Mot yet spake a voice, and behold it was her husband back to earth and as alive as any mortal man can be. He was thereupon restored to member ship again in the insurance organiza- tion, and was kept in good standing
 until 1899, when he died (again), and his wife duly buried him. She then
 filed proof of her husbands s death with the company and awaited the $2, GOO.
 For some unknown reason, however, call it what you will res judicata or stare decisis, the insurance company
 was dead, and refused payment of
 the $2, GOO. Plaintiff sued, and the case
 was tried and resulted in a judgment
 for defendant. Five years later, her
 husband not having yet returned from
 his latest demise, she again set forth
 on the troublesome sea of litigation,
 feeling assured that by this time her
 husband was dead enough at least to
 create legal presumption of death
 by reason of lapse of time. Had he
 any further claims on mortal life he
 should have returned before now. The
 result of this trial was dismissal
 with costs, and, feeling aggrieved, she
 appeals. The Supreme Court, Ap-
 peIlAte Division, New York, holds that
 the former judgment which went for
 defendant was res judicata and bar
 to the second action, which she has no
 standing in court to maintain. Judg-
 ment is affirmed.
 IMPROPER REMARKS OF COUN-
 SEL-An improper remark of counsel
 during the trial of an action brought
 by a young man for the, loss of leg through defendant railroad company's negligence. in which he recovered $20,-
 600 damages, is revised in Bump V. Delaware L. & w. R. Co.,, Al New York Supplement, 1909. In summing up
 to tbe Jury, plaintiffs counsel. in an outburst of oratory, used this Ian
 guage: e'Gentlemen of the jury, you are the only Judges of these things. It does seem to me that if twelve men can go into the Jury room and find this construction not negligent, then we might as well remove the statue of Justice from the dome of the court house, and erect in. it's place statue of Phoebe Snow, the patron saint of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad company; we might as well cut upon that stone in front of the courthouse, Sacred to the interests of the D., 5L & w., the road of anthra- cite at $6.5O per ton '' Was this re- versibIe error? The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, of New York, holds that although the language was i'm proper, unprovoked, and ill-consider- ed, the occurrence should not be de- ve1oped into an excuse either to re- verse the verdict or take any part of it away from the plaintiff Since the trial judge promptly rebuked counsel for his improper language, and in the charge emphatically and dis tinctly instructed the Jury to disre- gard the remarks, the court refuses to moIest the verdict. Quoting the court: s'It is not reasonable to sup pose that men fit to sit as jurors can be swerved and biased away from jus- tice, as children and savages might | be. by every little improper statement | made by counsel in Summing up; par- ticularly this is so where the trial | court denounces the counsePs language I and cautions the jury against it. To | assume that this ridiculous suggestion | the imaginary Phoebe | Snow could have been taken seriously | by the jury, or have been deciding factor with them, places the lowest | pacity of jurors. To force this plain verdict, or to subject each of the litf- yants and the county to the expense 1f 8 new trial because of this absurd suggestion, would be a determination k which, fear, would not be recognized IS the product Of Judicial common sense. nor stand the test of public ,crutiny.''
 sUFFRAGETTE I N TIE RR PTs