Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1914-04-09
THE FULL
CONNOR VERDICT
The Questions and Answers as
They We're Submitted and
Answered by the Jury

tliOJ USiG SuUiliiIlCu dItu
Answered by the Jury
Many people have formed an erro-
neous opinion regarding the finding
Of the jury in the R. Connor Company
case against the Wisconsin Central
Railway Company. To set them
right, we publish below, the complete
verdict
The questions given to the jury
and their answers to them follow:
Question 1.-Wrhat damage did the
plafntiff, the R. Connor Company, sus
tain by reason of property destroy.
ed by the fire of May 18th, 1906?
Answer, ,-$35 538.84
Question WAS the fire which de
stroyed the property of the R. Common
Company started by fire which came
from am engine of the Wisconsin Cen
traI Railway Company?
AnsWer,-Yes.
Quest ion 3.-Dfd the defendant com
pany negligently ALLOW combustible
and inflamable material to remain on
it's right OF way at Auburndale?
Answer, NO.
Question 4-If you answer the
third question 'syes,' then answer
this question: Did such negligence
consist in whole or in part in allow
ing wood to remain ON its right of
way?
Answer,-CThis question was not
answered.)
Question 5.-f you answer the
third question Yves" then answer
this question: Did such negligence
consist iu whole or i'm part in allow
ing combustlbIe and inflamalble mate
rial to remain in the portion of the
right of way between the wood and
the house track?
Answer, = CThis question was not
amswered)
Question Eff you answer question
2, YES then answer this question:
Did said fire start in the wood piles
or i'm the right of way between the
wood piles and the house track?
Answer,-In the wood piles.
Question What was the distanc |
from the east line of the parcel OF
land described in Ex- of the evil |
dence TO the point where the fire
started?
AInswer, isl feet.
Question S.-It you anaWs7r qtpastns'l /
5 yes -hen answer this question;
Was the negligence of the railroad |
company the proxinate cause of the
burning of the plaintiffs property?
Answer (This question was not
answered.)
Question 9.-Wa.s there amy negIa- |
gence on hte part OF the r. Common
Company which nroximately comtribu-
ted to the burning of it's said proper
ty?
Answer
Question lO.-Was the lease of Feb |
5th. 1902 (Ex. of the evidenoe) in
force in the winter and spring of 1906 |
Answer,-No.
Question 1I.-Was the lease of Feb |
LIST. 1895 (Ex. II of the eyidemoe) in
force i'm the winter and spring of
1906?
Answer,-No.
It wild be noticed that the ques-
tiuns 4,5 and were not answered as
they referred to question 3, which
question was answered, No. Ques
tions As and could only be
answered in the event of the answer
to questino 8 being yes.
While there has been an opinion
about the city tlrat the R. Connor
Company was the winner in this case
still an analysis of the questions and
answers Will show that it was not
The suit was brought On the ground
that the defendant railroad company
was negligent in regard to allowing
conlbustdble material to remain on
it's right of way, The jury found that
the railroad company was not nesll-
gent in this. The jury also found
that the fire started in the wood pixies
and not in the right of way between
the wood piles which We're owned
by the I. Connor Co. and the house
track Another feature that enters
into the case was question 10. The
lease, which the jury found to be IN
force in 1906 was ineffect a lease
whereby the r. Connor Company oc-
cupied railroad property with the
agreement that the railroad company
was not responsible for loss ON the
part of the R. Cannon Company.
So that it is evident that the rail
road company was not negligent, that
the fire started in the wood piles
of the r. Common Co. and not in the
right of way between the wood piles
and the track, that the lease was
in force and that under the lease
the railway company lis not liable for
damages.