The Washington times., 1914-06-04

lington as general counsel of the Wash
ington Railway and Electric Company
from 1906 to 1911. He said that the
company controlled all the street car
lines in the District except the Capital
Traction company system at that time.
When asked about the nature of the
cases. Mr.. Douglas said s. per cent of
them charged negligence.
He explained the system prevailing in
the District courts at that time. say
ing that Justice Wright was in Circuit
Court. No. l, practically all the time
from June, 1906. to June, 1910. He said
he tried sixty-five cases before Justice
Wright, and he presented to the COM
mittee a list of these cases and the
outcome of each.
DO you remember a case brought
DE Mrs. Hill against one of the sub
sidiary companies" asked Chairman
Mccoy.
Yes. very vididly,'' replied Mr..
Douglas. "It was against the George
town and Tenleytown line"
I'm that case there was a verdict of
A5oo for the PLAINTIFF
Yes"
The verdict was set aside by JUS
tice wright
Yes That is, it was set aside be-
cause of excessive damages allowed by
the jury, and a new trial was ordered
or Mrs. Hill could have accepted a
smaller amount of damages.
"A new trial resulted and she got
verdict for $1,000 before Justice
Gould?"
Recommends Compromise.
Yes, sir. 1 will explain that If you
wish. We followed "a system of COM
promising all the cases that We could.
1t came to me that We could compro
mise that case for $500 or not to ex-
coed $1,000. and in a conference Of the
nn% ~
recommended a compromise. My COL
leagues disapproved. on the ground that
IL was fake case One of the Off
GERS of the company came in at the
time, and I remember his disapproval
of q compromise. His remark was
millions for defense, but not a cent
for tribute The injuries sustained by
Mrs. Hill were trifiing and superficial.
In the case j argued to the jury thai
no just verdict would be for more than
$500 but, to our surprise, the verdict
was for 1850. We argue1 a motion
for a new trial before Justice Wright,
setting forth our original contention
that Mrs. Hills injuries were superb
cial, and at the outside damages should
not have been more than S5N. Justice
Wright held with us, granting a new
trial, on the ground of excessive DIM
ages allowed by the trial jury. The
trial before Justice Gould was held.
for a new trial. and when the motion
was pending, We compromised the case
for something like 5000. L believe
still believe that I could have settled
the case originally for the outside fig
ure of $1,000
did Mrs. Hill not claim that she was
dragged by the car some sixty feet. -
II don't recall any such testimony"
Did she not appear in rolling chair
during the first trial before Justice
Wright
''I don't think So"
Have you ever heard that she had
for three years been disabled?"
81 have heard many things about
cases I have tried. One was that Mrs.
Hill became apparently well shortly
after the case was settled
How long did Justice Wright take
under advisement your motion for Il
rev trial?''
II don't know. but I believe it was
two or three weeks"
Was ii not six months?"
II don't think so. The records will
show, but i am sure ii was not that
long"
The hearing then adjourned until 10
o'clock this morning.