Evening journal., 1922-01-06
HUXLEY ARGUES
FORNEW TRIAL
sol, 900 Verdict Against
Railway Company Said
To be Excessive
JUDGES RESERVE
THEIR DECISION


reserved by Chief Justice Pennewill
and Judges Rice and Harrington. in
Superior Court this morning, on the
application Of the defendant to set
aside the verdict and grant a new
trial in the suAs Of Green and Finn,
Inc. and John j. Luke, ct. al,
against the Philadelphia and Read
ing Railway Company A verdict for
$4,000 was awarded the plaintiffs
by a jury In December.
This suit arose out OF fire at the
Green and Finn lumber yard Green
vile, some months ago. when the
buildings and stock at the yard were
destroyed. as a result Of. according to
the plaintiff, sparks from a passing
engine Of the defendant company.
John w Huxley represented the
defendant and Judge Daniel o. Hast
ings and Ayres j. Stockley represent
ed the plaintiffs The reasons given
by Mr. Huxley for a new trial are as
follows
THAT the verdict is contrary to
the law and the evidence; that the
damages awarded by the jury are
grossly excessive: that injustice was
done the defendant by the failure of
the court to charge the jury as re-
quested in the first prayer of the de-
fendant as follows:-"to find a YER
dict for the defendant"
That injustice was done the de-
fandant in admitting against the OBJ
lection of the defendant. evidence
of other fires when II was not shown
that such other fires were caused by
/ the engine, which is claimed to have
caused the fire, in question, such en-
gine being clearly Identified.
THAT injustice was done the de-
/ fendant in the admission of testi-
mony, against the objection of the
defendant, Of other fires at other
times, when IT was not shown that
the conditions under which such
other fires occurred were the same
or similar as those on the night OF
the fire in question.
THAT injustice was done the de-
fondant in the admission of testi-
mony against the objection of the de-
fendant, OF other fires. six months
before and six months after the
\ date OF the fire in question. for the
reason that such fires were too re-
mote in point Of time.
THAT injustice was done the de-
fendant in the courts refusal to ad-
init i'm the cross examination OF
Samuel I. Clough. the question as to
his conviction for drunkenness,
shortly prior and subsequent to the
date of said fire.
1,r IL
fendant in the statement OF DAME
o. Hastings Esquire, in his address
to the jury why was engine No
9S2 scrapped and why had it no
been seen along there since the dat
' of the fire.
"That injustice was done the de
fendant in admitting, against IN
objection OF the defendant. evidenc
q OF plaintiffs gross business for ST,
months preceding the fire and nv
months subsequent to resumption o
business.
THAT injustice was done the de
fendant in admitting. against tn
objection OF the defendant. evidence
Of the emission OF sparks OF othe
engines at other times when il wa
not shown that the conditions unde
the same or similar to those on tn
which said sparks were emitted wer
night Of the fire in question.
THAT injustice was done tn
defendant in admitting. against tn
objection Of the defendant, evidenc
Of the emission OF sparks Of othe
b engines at other times, and othe
places. when 1t was not shown tho
such engines were similarly equippe
as the one which was alleged to hav
caused the fire.
That injustice was done IN
Z defendant in the refusal of the cour
{ In the cross examination OF Ernes
! Green TO permit defendant to in
! quire into the actions Of Mr.. Fran
{ Finn on his arrival at said FIRE
"That injustice was done tn
! defendant in admitting, against III
$ objection Of the defendant. evidenC
p Of spark arresters, their constru,
L tion and use on the Pennsylvani
Railroad. by Mr.. Nygaard. who ha
Z not been in the employ Of said raj
road. since April, A. ID. 1920.
I. Judge Hastings argued principal
, on the point Of the identity OF IN
engines. saying the plaintiffs mad
= no effort to Identify the engines
= the time OF the trial and that it WI
Z not charged that any particular locl
e motive was responsible for the col
flagration. He said that any idei
tihcation made was made by the d
fendant-
Cases OF law were quoted by Judf
Hastings to show where testimon
I had been admitted concerning pr'
, vious fires as far back as four year
where the engine was not identihe