The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-02-14
VERDICT TO STAND
IN WALKER SUIT.
Judge Crump Refuses to Set 1t
Aside on Motion of Attor- :
neys for Defense.
GOT. $4,000 FOR ALIENATION
Court Unable to Find That Jury
Erred in Deciding Against
Radcliffe Family.
GOT $4,000 FOR ALIENATION

and Equity Court. yesterday denied tho
motion to set aside the $4,000 verdict
| In the alienation suit brought by
Thomas Grant Walker against the fdm-
lily Of Betty Ratcline. his wife.
| The suit, the first Of its kind In tho
history of Virginia courts, continued
J through moro than week. and at
| tracted wide attention on account OF
the unique and varying phases OF hu
man conduct which entered into It.
Both sides We're represented by able
counsel. the plaintiff by l." Q. Wenden-
1 burg and II. Gray Haddon and tho de-
! PENDANTS BY c. V. Meredith and Nc
Donald Wexford. Suit was brought
! for s25.u0o, and on December 10. after
being out only short time. the jury
returned verdict giving the plain
i tiff $4,000 damages. Motion to set
aside the verdict as being contrary to
law and evidence and on the grounds
81 faulty instructions to the jury was
Immediately made. The case may now
go To the Supreme Court OF Appeals.
Turned on Two Contentious.
Judge Crump said In part:
/ The argument upon the motion
made by the defendants to set aside
tho verdict OF the jury and grant a
new tlial of the issues I'm this case,
turned chiefly upon two main conten-
1 lions: First, that tho evidence did not
Justify verdict for the plaintiff: or.
! In any event. not against all OF tho
defendants: and, second. that the law
governing the case was not accurate
/ ly stated In the instructions given BY
/ tho court to the jury.
Il. II is an underlying and jealous
~ guarded principle OF our jurispru
dcnce that the jury are tho triers Of
the facts, and tho court should not In
| wade the province of the jury and In
| terfere with the conclusions upon the
a Fr-A.-
verdict of the jury. however. must rest
| upon some evidence adduced before
4 them in the particular case tending to
prove the facts In issue, although the
evidences may consist Of circumstances
and presumptions and not OF direct
| testimony.
"'rhe jury has the exclusive right
| TO weigh and Lass upon the prcpond :
erance or weight of conflicting evil
denco and the credibility of witnesses.
| While these arc undoubted and nc
| knowlelged axioms Of our law, mo-
| tion addressed to the trial court TO
| set aside the verdict Of jury on the
| ground that 1t Is contrary to tho evil
] dence il settled mode OF procedure,
| and II is the duty of the judge to en-
| terrain and pass upon II. The extent
| of the supervising authority OF the
trial court, over the verdict as de-
termination of the facts, has been Of
ten considered by our Court of Appeals,
and the duty and power of the trial
Judge In this respect is fairly well
! settled"
Quotes Established Rule.
| After quoting from several cases,
Judge Crump says:
In general terms. tho establish cd
rule may be stated to be that the YER
dict is TO be set aside In two instances,
that IS. IL II is plainly against the evil
dencc, or without evidence to support
1t" He quotes further from authori-
ties IN regard to tho respect which
should be paid To the decisions OF
jurics, and says. This is SO evident
that the courts habitually defer To the
conclusions of juries upon matters OF
fact, though opposed to their own; and
| hence the familiar rule not to dis
turb verdict unless In a case of plain
| deviation from the evidence"
Further, Judge Crump quotes: THE
verdict OF jury cannot be set aside
unless there is palpablc insutiiclency
OF evidence 10 sustain it, Nor is m
reference with verdict authorized
| where the court merely doubts it's
correctness, or would itself have found
a different verdict The admisslbiliry
of evidence is with the court, but its
weight is wholly with tho jury.
The two main questions OF fact 10
be decided by the jury In this case
were whether conspiracy existed
they maliciousiy sought to deprive the
plaintin of the society of his wife.
ouch issues arc especially for the do
termination of jury, as their decision
SO largely turns upon inIerences from
tho evidence as 10 motives and intent,
"hich are, as rule. not capable of
direct proof The evidence IN cases
involving conspiracy, malice and fraud
~ apt TO be circuinSlantial only"
Not Contrary AZ l1yIuence.
upon careful consideration of all
the evidence In the case viewed IN the
ishl OF these established principles of
law. i am unable To hoId that the YER
dlct OF the jury was so plainly against
the evidence, or SO pulpaply without
evidence thai 1t Is the duty of the
court To set IL aside. The case involved
tho scanning of various phases of hu-
man conduct under the circumstances
IN which the parties were placed, with
differences to be drawn as to.the intent
and motives by which they were ac-
tuatcd. Conclusions upon such matters
are peculiarly for the judgment of a
jury, and while the direct testimony is
not very convincing, and not equally
strong against all of the defendants.
yet the volumnous evidence discloscs
sufficient facts, in case OF this char
acter, to render the conclusion OF the
jury final. so that the court is with
out power to disturb it.
"2. The instructions given by tho
court TO the jury covered. every phase
: OF the case on either side. Tho oucs-
, tons of law, requiring immediate set
Element by tho court. were of, novel
/ character, but further examination has
convinced me that tho Instructions
/ taken "a n whole, contained fair
statement Of the law applicable to the
case. although some of the language
and phrascology might have been Inn
\ proved. After the instructions had
] been read by the court they were con
4 sidered and explained to the jury In
the course of argument by counsel, and
4 there was no indication that the law
applicable to the case was not thor
oughly set forth and explained. :.
AN order may be entered overrullng