Retaliation Cases

<p>Case 84. — ACTION BY ALBERT C. HATHAWAY’S EXECUTRIX AGAINST LOUISVILLE, H. & St. L. R. CO. FOR CAUSING THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S INTESTATE.</p> <p>Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch., Second Division.</p> <p>Ti-iomas R. Gordon Judge.</p> <p>Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.</p> <p>POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>1. When, by deducting one rough estimate of a distance from another rough estimate of a distance between a running train and a stationary object, the remainder is a distance of thirty feet, which at the rate of- speed of the train, would be traversed in one and one-half seconds, and on this alone the plaintiff relies to prov-e a “negligent delay” in giving a signal to- stop the train, the court should have peremptorily instructed the jury to find for the defendant, as there is no proof of any facts from which negligence could be inferred. The foundation for the inference being ’speculation and guesses. (Wintuski’s Adm’r v. L. & N., 14 Ky. Law Rep., 580; Hughes’ Adm’r v. Cincinnati, &c., R. Co., 91 Ky., 526; Louisville Gas Co. v. Kaufman, 106 Ky., 131; L. & N. v. W(athen, 22 Ky. Law Rep., 85.)</p> <p>2. When all the witnesses testify that the nature of an object seen lying beside t.he track was never suspected to be a person until it was too late to stop the train, the court should not -submit the case to- the jury on the theory that the jury might conclude the- real character of the object was discovered sooner than any witness said it was or could have been discovered, (Earley’s Adm’r v. L., H. & St. L., 24 Ky. Law Rep., 1808; Goodman’s- Adm’r v. L. & N., 25 Ky. Law Rep., 1086.)</p> <p>1. The main and practically the only contention of the counsel for appellant is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. There is no question of law involved. Under our system the jury is the absolute and unqualified- trier of the facts of a jury case. Its province is as complete and unassailable as that of the court to direct it as to the

<p>Case 77 — Action bt Albert Jahn’s Admr. against William H. McKnight & Co. for Causing the Death of Plaintiff’s Intestate.</p> <p>APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.</p> <p>Judgment foe Defendants and Plaintiff Appeals.</p> <p>POINTS.</p> <p>1. The team owner was not an independent contractor.</p> <p>2. Whatever may have been the relation between the appellee and the team owner, the relation between appellee and the team driver was such as to render appellee liable for the team driver’s negligence,</p> <p>3. In any event, the lower court erred in giving a peremptory instruction to find for appellee.</p> <p>AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., vol. 16, pp. 187, 190, 191; Jenson v. Barbour, 15 Mont., 582; Montgomery Gas Light Co. v. Montgomery & E. Ry. Co., 86 Ala., 372; Campbell v. Lunsford, 83 Ala., 512; Linehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass., 123; Thompson on Negligence, vol. 1, p. 579; Alyell v. Tyrer, El. Bl., 906; Blake v. Thirst, 2d H. & C., 20; Texas, &c. R. R. Co. v. June-man, 71 Fed. Rep., 939; Tiffin v. McCormick, 34 Ohio St., 638; Waters v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 52 Minn., 474; Phila W. & B. Ry. Co. v. Hahn, 12 Atl., 479; Thompson on Negligence, vol. 1, sec. 579, p. 537; Kimball, v. Cushman, 103 Mass., 194; Adams Express Co. v. S'chofield, 23 Ky. Law Rep., 1120; Southern Express Co. v. Brown, 67 Miss., 260; Vary v. Ry. Co., 42 la., 246; Wichtrecht v. Fasnacht, 17 La. Ann., 166; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Tow, &e., 23 Ky. Law Rep., 408; Rait v. New Eng. Fur. &c., 66 Minn., 76; Barg Bousfield, 65 Minn., 355; Sullivan v. Dunham, 35 N. Y. App. Div., 342; Hart v. Ryan, 6 .N. Y. Supp., 921; Brophy v. Bartlett, 108 N. Y., 632.</p> <p>POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>1. Appellees are merchants, having no delivery wagons; they contracted with Granville' Hooper to furnish them a horse, wagon and driver to carry and deliver as much as could be done with one team, for a stipulated price per week. By the contract Granville Hooper selected the horse

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.</p> <p>No. 32 October Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 407 March Term 1887, C. P. No. 1.</p> <p>On February 7, 1887, a summons in case was served in an action by Alfred Hollister against Dr. John S. Dickson and Sarah Dickson, his'wife, -to recover damages for personal injuries received through the alleged negligence of the defendants. Issue.</p> <p>At the trial on November 17, 1887, the facts appearing in evidence were substantially as follows :</p> <p>On April 10, 1886, the plaintiff, a resident of Utica, New York, was in Pittsburgh, as a traveling salesman for a drug house in New York city, and in the afternoon of that day when passing in front of property belonging to the defendants on Ninth street, in the pursuit of his business, he stepped upon the grating which covered a coal-hole in the foot way. The grating was displaced by his step upon it, and turned or slipped away, whereby the plaintiff fell into the coal-hole to his arm-pits, receiving a severe injury upon his right leg below the knee. He was confined to his bed at the St. Charles Hotel for two months, under treatment, and was off duty for still another month. Erysipelas supervened during his confinement. His testimony, as to the occurrence resulting in his injury sufficiently appears in the charge of the court below and in the opinion of this court. Dr. Orr, his physician, testified that the erysipelas set in on the sixth or seventh day; that erysipelas frequently though not usually followed wounds, but if there had been -no wound there would have been no erysipelas. Other witnesses were called by the plaintiff to prove his injuries, the resultant suffering and the expenses incurred, when he rested.</p> <p>The defendants called Thomas Johnson, an employee of the defendants -who had charge of the building in front of which the injury occurred, and who testified that the coal-hole was not in use at the time, and he had secured the grat

<p>Appeal from Cherokee. Tried below before tlie Hon. Samuel L. Earle.</p> <p>The appellant and one Henry Mitchell were jointly indicted at the Fall term (1868) of the District Court of Cherokee County, for the murder of W. E. Hartless, the husband of the appellant. The death was charged to have been inflicted with a stick and a pocket-knife.</p> <p>At the same term the accused appeared,' pleaded not guilty and obtained a severance. The trial of the appellant ensued, and. she was convicted of murder in the second degree, and her punishment assessed by the jury at ten years’ confinement in the penitentiary, with hard labor. A new trial being refused, the defendant appealed.</p> <p>The first error assigned was the admission of “ testimony as to the habits, disposition and character of the defendant, as pointed out in her bill of exceptions.” It was in proof that the deceased and the appellant .had been married about fourteen years, and had lived amicably together until some two years previous to the homicide; at which time the deceased “put up a still, and commenced making whisky and brandy.” The witness for the State, being under his examination in chief, proceeded to state: “ Deceased then took to drinking, and the fussing began. I have frequently heard the accused hallooing and screaming as if in distress, since the still was put up; and it became such a common thing to hear her, that it was regarded as a nuisance to the neighborhood. We could tell whenever deceased had made a ‘ run ’ of the still, by the hallooing of the accused. I don’t know what made accused make this noise; don’t know which was to blame for it, she or deceased. Know that deceased was frequently drunk, and accused may have been too. I have seen accused drink whisky, but never saw her intoxicated.”</p> <p>By the defendant’s bill.of exceptions, it appears that this testimony went to the jury over her objection, and before she had put her character, habits or disposition in issue.</p> <p>The second