Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRailroad Records 1900-19011900 - 1901 North Carolina, 3 In the Superior Court, Iredell County. | | Pebruary Term 1898. M. J. Barnaby, vs CO MP Db Ati ., Southern Railway Company. The plaintiff complaining alleges : : ist. That at the times hereinafter mentioned the Southern Railway Company was, and until the present time is, &@ corporation created and organized under the laws of the State of Virginia, and doing the business of a common carrier of freights and passengers for hire in, upon and over divers - lines of railway in the State of North Carolina. | 2nd. That at the times hereinafter mentioned, and until the present time, the said defendant, the Southern Railway Company, had the sole and absolute control and man- agement of, and was entirely responsible far the control, management and operation of a certain line of railroad ex- tending from the town of Taylorsville in Alexander County, North Carolina,.by way of Statesville, evétitiones., Skiakaeae and Mooresville to Charlotte, North Carolina, either by vir- tue of a lease or purchase of the said lines of railroad, the said defendant controlling, managing and operating the said road as a common carrier of freights and passengers for hire between the points aforesaid. Srd. That on the 29th day of September 1898 the plaintiff was a passenger on the passenger train of the de- fendant from Sloans station to a station called Shepherds on the line of the railway aforesaid, and as such passenger she had paid her fare for transportation to the said village of Shepherds, and that for the want of due care and prudence on the part of the defendant company and its agents when the 4 plaintiff arrived at the said village of Shepherds she was (2) seriously and permanently injured on account of the negli- gence of the defendant. 4th. That the defendant was negligent in failing to provide a safe and suitable landing for passengers to dis- embark from its train at the depot at SRSENC TSS: whereby the plaintite Haceived her injuries. 5th. That the defendant carelessly and negligently failed to provide suitable appliances at the said station at Shepherds so as to furnish for passengers a safe exit and landing for passengers on its train, whereby the plaintiff received her injuries. 6th. That when the plaintiff undertook to leave the train at her destination at Shepherds the said train had been stopped by those in charge of it at a point where the passengers were directed to get off in-the night time and in » the darknéss where the lowest steps of the train were two or three feet above the ground and over a ditch along the. track of the road, and the plaintiff not being familiar with the place of landing, and not knowing the danger, and without any fault on her part was directed by the conductor in charge of the said train to step off of the train when it stopped at the said station at the said dangerous place of landing, and that. in doing so the plaintiff received the injuries afore- said. 7th, Thet-et the-time the pleainti?*? cescended from the car, under the direction of the defendants agents in charge of the train as aforesaid, there was another train of the defendant coming in the direction of the town of Statesville which had stopped at the said station of Shep- herds, and the train upon which the plaintiff had been car- ried to Shepherds was going in the opposite direction towards the town of Charlotte, and the two said trains passed é6ach — other at the said station, and the defendant, through and by (3) } by its train men in charge of the train on which plaintiff ; : ¢ * was riding, negligently and carelessly stopped the said train and caused the plaintiff to get off of the said train in the darkness at the dangerous point aforesaid, and in doing so, without any fault on her part, she received the serious in- Juries aforesaid. That. by carelessly stopping the trains Hat the aid atation the erkte on ehsak thé plaintiff was he- ing conveyed was pushed on to a siding at an unusual stopping place for passengers to get off, and there was not a prudent and careful provision mace in the stopping of the trains for the passengers thereon to descend and pass away from the same . 8th. Theat by reason of the nerligence of the de- fandant and its agents as aforesaid plaintiff's left leg was seriously and permanently injured, the knee joint dislocated and she received bruisés and injuries, incurred by descending from the train as aforesaid, from which she has suffered and continues to suffer great bodily and mental pain and dis- tress, and she is informed and fears that she is perhaps permanently injuried. That at the time of the said injury she was about the age of 51 years, and has been put to great trouble and expense, doctors bills and otherwise, on account thereof, and from then until the present time hrs been con- fined to her bed. That prior to the said injury she had had good health. 9th. That plaintiff is a married woman but that her husband is dead. 10th. That by reason of the actual damages, #x- penses, mental and physical suffering as aforesaid, plaintiff has suffered large damages, to-wit in the sum of Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Nine Dollars and fifty cents ($1999.50). Wherefore she demands judgment of the defendant for $1999.50, and for the costs of this action, and for such | (4) other and further relief’ as she may be entitled to. AAG me ep lele L- Attorneys for Plaintiff, OE ET OS ay eh. Ee gat , » ; : So - oy Ms, Barnaby after being awont deposes and says » that the’ facts set forth in the foregs i tie complaint as of her ‘own knowledge are At rue; arid those stxft ed on information and beliet’ she believes to be true. 3 Angee hie jf. Mts Sworn #0 and subscribed before 1862.5" Cay af November 120¢. 7 At. Ap hare Clete Si hin Cant Cahmrrtcey Or 4s Ae_ In Superior Court, Feb. Tera, 1990, North Carelims, 8 ~q. Iredell County. M.J. Barnaby \A ¥ Bg BR * vs. ' Southern Railway Company. The defendent answering the earplaint in this eause says: Ist. That the allegations eontained in the first paragraph are true, Qnd. ‘That the allegations eentained in the sssond paragraph | pap ord, That it is true thet plaintiff was a passenger on its train on the 29th, Sept. "98, end paid the fare frem Sloeen’s bo Sheaghert’s, as alleged in the third paragraph . All other! ellecations contained in said paragraph are not true, ani are | denied, | 4th, ‘That the ellegatiow contel ned in the fourth paragre | phere not true, ani are denied, | Sth. That the allegations eentained in the fifth paragraph are not true, end are denied, 6th. That the allegations contained in the sixth paragraph are not true, and are denied. | 7th, Thab the alhegations contained in the seventh paregre- | ph are not true, ani are denied, Sth. That the allegations @ stained in the eigith paragraph are net true, ani are denied, Sth That es @8fendant is informed and believes, the allege- tiene eemteined in ¢he ninth paragraph are net true, “ (2) 10th, That as defendant is informed and believes, the alle- gations eontained in the tenth peragraph are not true, xend are denied . Wherefore having fully answered, defendant demands thet it be henee dismissed with its costs. Chile, Ceinty Ce age et Jhb c1+~ ‘ital’ a for Defendant. ‘ | North carolina B Wak$ County, 2 » > ©, \ | A,B, andrews, being duly eworn, says that he is an offices | lof the defendant corporation, to wit, the first Vice President (thereof, that he has read the ofregding answer, and knows the ‘leontertis thereof, and thé. the facts set forth therein as of | his own knowledeé are true, and those stated on information | | ond bekief, he believes to be A yet | gor to and subesribed before ~ thie the 2 2-day of p77 < °98, libel tie —- a/“v (s) ‘ -elia eit ,seveiled bra bemmotni ef Jmapnetcb 2s Jatt ft JO1 e718 brex eis Jon ois fiqatasiay dined ed’ ot beniadnoo eno i Jan . beineh duiJ ebaameb Inebrns’ «bd erond bas ,"owens mM ‘0 ga oivrerndt dé] see pw ivaArtto ln North baa, | In Superior Court, ‘Iredell Cgunty. Feb. Term, 1899, | terns «4 : ANSWER. vs. The defendant answering the complaint in this eause says: ’ Ist. That the allegations contained in the first paragraph are true, ' 2nd. That the allegations contained in the second paragraph are true, 4 Srd. That it 4s true that plaintiff was a passenger on its train on the 29th. Sept. ‘98, and paid the fare from Sloan's to Sheapherd's, * alleged in the third paragraph. All other allegations contained in said paragraph are not true, and are denied. 4th, That the allegations contained in the fourth paragre | ph are not true,, and are denied. | Sth. That the allegations eontained in the fifth paragraph are not true, and are denied. — 6th, That the mllegations contained in the sixth paragraph are not true, ani are denied. Veh. that the Bll6fations contained tn the seventh paragre-— | ph are not true, and are denied. Sth, That the pllegations @ ntained in the eighth paragraph are not true, and are denied. 9th That as d4@fendart is informed and believes, the allegg- tions contained in the ninth paragraph are not true. ag (2) 10th. That as defendant is informed end believes, the alle- gations eontained in the tenth paragraph are not true, xand are denied . : | Wherefore having fully answered, defondant demands the it be henge dismissed with its costs, Ck, Praise, PH Lena t Attorneys for Defendant. therein as of information ‘Sworn +o and sulseMibed before , this the _ day of Lt cre en Emo aby tes ate KC. ERS G > SA. Athan fa Moff, Barnaby ot ve. Special instructions prayed for by Plaintiff, Southern Railway Co. ‘ ig.) personal injuries to herself.* Strother's case 183--197. “ ect i nme ~ "The husband is not a necessary party where the wife sues for (2) *Bveryrailroad corporation shall start and run their cars for the transportation of passengers at regular times to be fixed by public notice, and shall furnish sufficient accommodation for the transporta- | tion ef all such passengers as shal) within a reasonable time previous thereté be offered for tranapertation at the place of starting and at he usual stopping places established fer receiving and discharging such passengers from and te such places en due payment of ng pone legally authorized therefor, ané shall be liable te the party appease ina action fer damages fer any neglect. er refusual in the premises.“ The Code Section 1968. Cited with approval in Purcell’s case 106--417. (3) ®3t is the duty of the Defendant Company te transport and place ts passengers safely at the peint of destination, and if injury to the were enavues from a failure te observe due care, the carrier is rima facei responsible. The true —_—" of care required from ‘he. the carrier is that degree which may have—been reasonably expected . from a sensible person in such situation. A passenger on a railroad train has the right to expect thatthe carrter has employed a ekiliful and prudent conductor who has experience and knowledge of his business sufficient to correctly e@vise and direct him as te the proper time and manner of alighting free the trein.® Lambeth’s case 66--—494, ‘ (4) Ordinary care in thie case on the part ef plaintiff is that gree of care which may | reasonably expected frem a sensible reon in her situation under the cireumstanees. She had « right te expect that the Defendant had employed a skillful and prudent conducter, wi (2) who would net expose her to dangerous risks, and who had experience and knowledge of his business eufficient to correctly advies and direet her as to the proper time, place and manner ef alighting safely from the train.® . Hinshaw's case 116--1083. 3 (8) "A passenger who gets off a railroad train in ebedience to the | directions from the conductOFr, whether these directions are expressed or can be reasonably inferred by the passengerg from the circumstances, is not at fault or guilty of contributory negligence, unless the danger in getting off at that place and time is se apparent te the passenger from the circumstances as to deter «a person eof ordinary prudence from so doing. When a passnger undertakes to get off the train under the direction and assistance of the condustor, the jury will be justified in imputing blame te the passenger when se acting in ebedience te such directions of +he company enly when the danger can be seen and known by the passenger, and where the danger is great--in other words, the danger must be not only apparent te the passenger, but it must be where danger and chances against a safe exit are more than waeey are in favor of the exit.* Rinshaw’s ease 116--1067. (6) ‘Persons whe are old ear feeble in health are not more culpable for failure te oe against the carelessness of those whose duty it is te previde fer their safety than these whe are vigorous and active All alike, whether vigereus er weak, sick or well, may act on the assump- tion that the servants ef a reilread Company whose occupation binds them to a high degree of diligence by exercise of at least erdinary care in looking after the safety of those ae ties ee under their protection,’ freee. Tillett's c 18 ‘1645 "And if the jury were to find from the evidence that the plaintiff was in a state @f health prediapesing her te suffer in ease of injury more seriously than would etherwiee have been the case, if her health had been very good, this will net relieve the earrier frem liability for an injury and its consequences if such, tas ouffered by her in consequence of defendant's negligence.* 4m. Ge. Ga. Law Wl. 8, Page 767. @ (7). lf you find shes from the evidence that the passenger train upon which the plaintiff was a passenger br Sheppards stopped when it reached the said vaesaee and yeu find that plaintiff followed the conductor and with his —, ‘undertook to disembark at the place where ‘the train had been stepped, and that this place was on a side track and not on the main line, and you further find that tt was in the “aight time and that the lower step of the car was 2 1A or more feet high from the ground and that the plaintiff was thus induced without | knowledge of the conditions of the landing te undertake to make her way from the train under circumstances which were Likely te cause her injury, and you find that in attempting te alight frem the car thet she steeped from the car in the G@arkness wpon the ground whieh had an umeven surface, and which was net a suitable and proper place for a lady te be landed from the train, and that in consequence thereef her knee was dislocated and she received other injuries, under such state of facts the jury would respond te the first issue Yes.@ (8) and if you find that the passenger train which earried plain- tiff te Sheppards arrived there when a freight train was upon the main line #0 as to prevent the landing of passengers at the landing which waa eafe and prepared fer the purpose at the said depot, and that the defendant could with erdinary care have removed the said freight train eff the main line and have érawn up the passenger train ween the asain line se as te diecharge the passengers won a safe landing prepared upon the said main line at said etation, but neglected to do se, and that those in charge of the passenger train undertook te deliver the passengers on the passenger train at a place upon the siding which was “unsuited and @angerots for the purposé and in the night time and where the lights were not sufficient to give due warning to the passengers of the condition of the ground and landing, and you find that the plaintiff mot knowing the condition ef the landing was led by the defendant's agent te believe that it was a eafe place fer landing when in fact it was net, and thereby she reesived the injuries alleged, this would be negligence in the defendant and you sheuld respend te the first issu yee.” ‘ - (9 3, The defendant in it’s answer has not set up contributory negligence in the plaintiff, that is, has not alleged that the plaintiff | was to blame, so that the defendant's liability depends upon whether you find that ~ plaintiff has offered proof which preponderates on the first issue. te show that the defendant was negligent ; / therefore if you find from the evidence that thd defendant was negligent in providing a safe landing and thie resulted in injury te the plaintiff ghe is entitled to recover and you would anawer the first issue Yes. | (4) 3 (9) It was the duty of the conductor te know whether the place of land ing was safe er unsafe: if it was unsafe it was his duty to notify or cause the plaintiff to be notified ot it in time to avobd injury; and if he knew of the unsafety of it, or by reasonable diligence he could have known it, and failed te reveal it to plaintiff and she, relying upon him and not raping the danger, stepped off at an unsafe landing and received the injury, this is negligence and you should respond yes to the first issue. Instructions on the second issue as to damages. y S\ (10) "If you find that the defendant is gu gujlty of negligence and WY ar. nul, you respond yes to the first issue yous inetruetten upon the question “7! d entitled to recast Mie aiauate one compensation for all hers past a and prospective sk Lgueaieiee-ob-tae-teseeniion ee ne es ‘% act; and these damages are understood to embrace indemnity te the damages im in response to the second issue that the plaintiff is plaintiff for actual nursing, medical expense and loss of time, or loss from inability to perform erdinary labor, or capacity to earn money; the plaintiff is entitled te have a reasonable satisfaction for the loss of both bodily and mental powers, or for actual suffering, both of bedy and mind which are the immediate and necessary consequences of Wallace ve Railread 104--4652, “ Yo soalq sft xenterw wond of totoubnoo ent To yeah ont asw 9T (@) Ytlton of ytuh eld saw tl etaaens caw ft ti retaen 1@ tsa asw ant dbnal reutat biove of emt? at tt fo bal*ifon ad of Wlentsalq ad* seauso t0 of soment{ih e{danoase: yi 10 ,tt To yrtetsaanu eft to wend ad tL bas eee bas Ttitatealq of 3 Lmever of befiat bus tt mond evar oIuoo etssnu ns fa To beqqeta ,1eqnAab eft aniwondt fon bia min coqu qaniyfet DbIuofa wov bas sonentinen al ald? .yiutal oA* baviteos: bas ani baat <oueet tart? ad* of wey boaoqast * -8egamsab of as euset dnoope ed? no enot*ourtant bas eonealinen Yo yfi{tun at *nobasteb adit tad? batt woy tI* (OL) to nolteewp edt noqe aolfourtent wwoy ewseat tant? eft of sey Snoqaen voy at TIivalstq ett Sand? ousst hrooee ont of sanoges al el seagemsd faaq selrutal {fs tot mottseneqmoo endo seqamad ald tevooet af beltifae faeqgiigen 10 Lutynoww atftnabreteS ed? To somem@pesnoo at avitosqeoiq ons edt af ytinmebat sosidme of bootetehaw eis seamed seed? Baa 74208 eaol 10..,eml! °o seol bas sacaegxe _Lso! bam .actansua tau?oa 103.2 ltataltg ;venom aise 0° ytlosqno 10,1904 10 miontteg of ytiftdaal mor? eit 107 nolfosteaeltise 2’ bel Mh tu "““*li*atalq ent to ditod ,aainetIwe L[adtoa 10% 10 , fftod To geonteupeanoos yipesseosn } oe Suet F 2 INSURANCE COMPANY, a x HARTFORD, CONN. + “THE LEADING FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.’ BROWN & GUY, Agents, STATESVILLE, N.C. _ hai tS - SRR te te et a a at gg 2y = 2 — ~ ee ee 4 i . Ce | | Ce fo. 47.72. & ot S i) PEC O ES | ete ak. Sei /\9S~ Ne ; as F3 eo 60 SI etiGie /\o0 /6 Cte 00 EVO Os es Me | 35- ‘ i Bue. 35> cas a a a ee Awe b ff, $5 ~ . « { "i ” + ° . 5 ‘ win saith eae agg cre teat Nt, OOO ANN OC IPI LES EOS EILEEN eR ae TER st tte a tanita te eee . — ad « . ~~ — eo . ak, At ence tfh Gk ff y North Carolina, ae : '-In the dasbies Court, - Sredell County. 7 Pebruary Form 1899. eee -vs- Complaint. Southern Railway Company. The plaintiffs complain and allege : let, That at the times hereinafter named the Southern Railway Company was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Vir- ginia and doing business in North Carolina as @ common earrier of freight and paséengers for hire, and was in control of, operating and running its said freight and passenger cars over a certain line of railroad be- tween Charlotte, Mooresville, Granite and Statesville, North Carolina, en the track of a certain railroad which is commonly called the Atlantic, Tennessee * Ohio Railroad. 2nd. That the plaintiff Addie Long at the times hereinafter mentioned, and at the present time, was and is the wife of the plaintiff J. M. Leng, and that the residence of the plaintiffs is in Mooresville, North Carolina. Sra. That on or about the fourth day of January 1899 the plaintiff Addie Long purchased a ticket from the agent ef the defendant at Mooresville to Granites Hill (or Shepherd's Cress Roads, as it is com- monly called) on the said line of railroad, and bearded the passenger train of the defendant company at Mooresville for the purpose of being transported as a passenger from the said town of Mooresville to the said depot at Granite Hill aforesaid; that when the passenger train of the @efendant on the said day regehed the said depot at Granite Hill the con- ductor and employes of the defendant in charge of the train neglected ani . failed to call the name of the said station, and they failed and neglects. ed to stop the said passenger train at the said depot at Granite Hill 4. eufficient length of time fer the passengers thereen destined to the cade depot to conveniently get off. That when the said train regehed the eai4 depot defendants employes in charge thereof slowed up the said train. e fo (2) é a6 that the said Addie ‘Long eieesaek that the ‘aia employes intended to lee the: ‘train for har to get ‘eff, and when the said train had euffi- cientiy ‘elackea up as ehe supposed, and and she thought it had stopped and that it was time for her to get off she immediately left her seat, which © was not very far ‘from the door in the coach where she wee eitting, end she went. to the platform of the car in order to ¢et off, but as she did 86 the employes of the @efendant in charge of the said train caused the paid train to be suddenly jerked and started in motion from the said depot so that she was thrown therefrom and on to the ground in the mud and upon the roeks near the train, and thereby received serious injury in her neck, shoulder, arm and hand. | 4th. That when the said train was thus suddenly started, CREE throwing the plaintiff Addie off as aforesaid there was no ringing of the bell or sounding of the whistle or other warning to indicate euch purpose, nor was the said plaintiff afforded any assistance Whatever, or was she given any direction whatever by any of the employes on the said train s0 as to enable her to avoid the injury ae aforesaid, and she was thue thrown off and the said injuries received without any fault on her part. _ Sth. That by reagon of the carelessness and negligence of the defendants employes as aforesaid the said Addie Long has received the injuries as above set forth, which have caused her great bodily and mental pain and distress, whereby she has been endamaged in the sum of Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-five Dollars. Wherefore the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for the sum of $1995.00 and the coste of thie action, and for such other Attorneys for Plaintiff. ' / ie (3) “Medio Long after edie duly sworn deposes and says that the facts set forth. in the forgoing complaint as of her own knowledge are tris,’ and those stated on information and belief ake believes to. be eae ; Baek were ee ddd. cling Yi 2 MIA Sworn to and subscrit 5a oe Up his rat th day wT" EEE | (8) edd dads oye baa ‘ennoqe® miowe y{ub gnled resis yao! ot BBA | 2 : ous egbe feons aoe ron 16 as tatelqmos gnlogeioy on? mt ditot fee etoat bad o? eoverred ove FOL Led bns nol SaU Ie Te mo hetsisa eeon? has ond -ourd \ . ‘ \ ‘ * , . ~ ’ ‘ % * rice te ay - . oe aetia . a pi cie an dosade aoe a a ; : x _-. eroted bedinsedus — ot si10w® ras ae Jo ¥ab Asay. ods 2 \ ste orth Carolina I In Superioe Court, Iredell Ceunty. | Vebuary Term, 1699. | ; Adéte—beng—endt Hns- band, J.M.Leng,T a4: vs \ a Seuthern Railway Company. | The defendant, answering the @ mplaint in this cause, saysi- Ist. That as defendant is informed and believes, the al- egations contained in the first paragraph of the complaint true. 2nd. That the defendant has ne knowledge ner infermation ffteient to enable it to ferm a belief as te whether the el- Degations contained in the second paragraph are true er net, and, therefere, denies same. | Srd, ‘That as defendant is informed and believes, the al- | Regatione contained in the third paragraph are net true, and + therefere, denied. 4th. That as defendant is infermed and believes, the al- Legat ions coo ntained in the feurth paragraph are net true, and are, therefore denied. Sth. That as defendant is infermed and believed, the al- egatiens centained in the fifth paragraph are net true, and e, therefere, denied. | 6th. And, fer a further answer te said complaint, de fenda- L says, that the plaintiff Addie Leng, contributed to her injury ty her negligence in stepping eff of a moving car mewing the same te be meving at the t ime. That, as defendant is informed and believes. the train m whieh Addie Leng was a sane reached Sheppards, her timation, the statien Sheppards | oes called by the eem eter, in Bhe ear in which she was riding, in a lead tone ef voice: That the train stopped at Sheppards a sufficient Saux length of time to enable the plaintiff te get off safely, if she had used due diligence in trying to do so: That instead ef trying to get off while the train was standing still, she remained in her seat until the train had started out for thhe next station, and then, seeing, and knowing it was moving, she attempted to get off, and fell while making the attempt: < That no officer or employe@ af the Company either invited or T © mmanded her to get off, wien she did. e Whe refore, having’ fully answered, defendant demands ‘ ‘that it be hence dismissed pee Tbe: 4 Wake County. A.B.Andrews, being duly sworn, says that he is an officer of the defendant , Southern Railway Company, to wit, the First Vice President thereéf, that he has read the fer going answer and knows the eontents thereef, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to matters therein, stated on information and belief, and as te such amtters, he believes them to be true. MIA tet Swern to rie subscribed before me this the fim __day ef ZS __1899, A esiceLis 5 7 ee Ped. ; ~Q, tai ffeeXrr Ads AP Ao TO 23.60 Sf. co 292 % ’ a . 2 a QD ; nae Ee ees thle. 7 Cece Zee S 1 ee. Pr ox. VE > / 20% p 2 deni My 361F North Carolina, In the Superior Court. Iredell County. | February Term 1900. Robert N. Smith, ve COMPLAINT: I Southern Railway Company. The isnee acetate and alleges: Pirst:- That the Defendant, the Southern Railway, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Virginia, and at the time hereinafter mentioned controlled, m@intained and operated, certain railroads known as the Western North Carolina Railroad extending from Salisbury via Statesville to Asheville, and also a line of railroad extending from Charlotte to Statesville and known as the Atlantic, Tennessee & @hio Railroad, together with the tracks, cars, locomotives and other appurtenances of and belonging to what was formerly the two a> eld 4 Aer Cond use te Care Teg aforesaid: i gfeorets a > he m7 ‘ad, Second:- That on the 18th of November 1899 the Plaintiff purchased a ticket at Mooresville from the Agent of the Defendant for his transpor- tation from Mooresville to Statesville; that he thereupon boarded the passenger train of the Defendant at Mooresville on the said day as a passenger, and that Defendant undertook to convey him safely to his destination at Statesville; that when the said train reached a point néar the gepot at Statesville it stopped, and the conductor at a position between the first and second class cars called out at this time: "Statesville. Change for the Western train"; that thereupon the Plaintiff in response to the announcement picked up *is sack of tools and started to get off the cars immediately, and in doing so he went te the platform of the car and had descended to the second step of the car, while the train was standing still, when suddenly and without ell ’ Vurther notice of any movement of the train, or any other warning from any employee of the Company, the cars were suddenly pushed backward on the track of the railroad operated by the Defendant ----that is, either on the track of the said Western North Carolina Railroad, or the Atlantic, Tennessee & Ohio Railroad, as the case may be, both of which are under the control of Defendant as aforesaid ----, and by reason of the sudden and unexpected movement backward of Defendant's ears as aforesaid, without warning to Plaintiff he was violently thrown against the ground, falling upon his side, and his right foot was thrown under the cars and mashed by the movement of same, so that he has received permanent injuries; that his injuries were thus caused by the careless- ness and negligence of the agents of the Defendant, without any fault on the part of this Plaintiff. Third:- That the Plaintiff was unacquainted with the landings of Defendant for its passengers at the said time and place, and had to rely, and did rely, upon Defendant's agents in charge of said train for information when and where to land, and was thus injured by the careless- ness of the Defendant, having obeyed the instructions of it's agents in undertaking to safely land when and where he was directed to do so. Pourth:- That the Plaintiff by reason of said injuries has been forced to have his great toe amputated and his foot has been permanently injured and his health greatly impaired, and he has been caused to suffer great bodily and mental pain on account thereof and continues to suffer the same. Pifth:- That Plaintiff is 51 years of age, that he follows the busi- mess of a carpenter and of farming, he has béén pit t6 great expense on account of his injuries and is unable to perform the duties for his family which he had hitherto been able to perform. Sixth:- That by reason of the premises the Plaintiff has been greatly hamaged, and for the purposes of this action he alleges his damages to be One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine Dollars ($1,999.00). Wherefore He demands judgment of the Defendant in the sum of One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine Dollars ($1,999.00), and the costs of this action. ae. Atty. for Plaintiff. Robert N, Smith after being sworn says that the foregoing Complaint is true to the knowledge of affiant, except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true. a NV. Kr rath ‘Sworn to and subscribed before me this the January 1900. Clerk of the Superior Court of Iredell County. mitp 4 (oo,.e8, £8) mest fat ony t ' North Carolina, | : Superior court, Iredell County. February Term, 1900, Robt. N,Smith ws misee. Southern Railway Company | The defendant answering the complaint in this cause says; “That the allegations contained in the first paragraph are not true. That the allegations contained gn the second paragraph are not tru and they are denied. That the allegations contained in the third paragraph are not true and they are denied. That defendant has no knowledge nor information sufficient to enable to form a belief as to whether the allegations contained in the fourth paragraph are true oF not true and therefore de- nies the same. That defendant has no knowledge nor information sufficient to enable it to form a belief as to whether the allegations con- tained in the fifth paragraph are true or net true and therefore denies the same. That the allegations cont-ined in the sixth paragraph are not true and they are denied. And for a further answer and defence to said e@etion,:, defen- dant says, that plaintiff's in/ury.was cansed by his own negli- gence and recklessness in attemptifig to alight from a moving train when he knew the same to be moving, without any command or invitation so to de. given by any employe of the defendant Company. Apa for a further anewer and defence to said action defendant s Saye, that plaintiff contributed to his injury by his own ne~ eligence in alighting from a moving train which he saw and knew to be moving, without any command or invitation so to dao given by any employe or agent of the defendant Company. Wherefore, having fully answered, defendant demands that it go | 'S without. day and recover its cost. é Z Li Gas we ae Ae ad we oe lot Ah EP, om Zz tr. % ‘ oP 2 LE. § a. Eto Pee Attorneys for defendant. North Carolina ; Wake County. : A.B. Andrews being duly sworn-says,that he is an officer of the defendant Southern Railway Company, to-wit; First Vice President, thereof; that he has read the foregoing answer and knows the contents . thereof; and thet the same is true to his own knowledge, excppt as to these matters therein stated on information and belief and as to those matters he believes it to be true. N71 Actin Sworn to and subscribed before i me this the ~7# day Pp: 1900, a. c9 sh Pi e vs , t ' ' Robt». N. Smith " © o a| » nt os tf Ff oO - B rs x Bl Bak Pack C4 uz 4 > Sf , {/ we A sf - > 1 ie a ‘, . : *. ‘ a , . - 3 et ¥ a ha “ ‘ * a. a +, * ’ te" unenciny Cutt S Ty cee con ae ee FS | te Pale Athenee heed go Lawl Sa a oe ak to Carry ane Del Pie de Pon Miia. Ses a dashes Wie thie foe — , er sex Ss ae LY, ml of ahowl bia Discos my ol <Aeet Zip ~e " a pak fk. 0 ad o_ fri. ' Lie Gut tard al 3 tal ra at sts pH. fad KX he Bary uty Li He tert of ) 9 ry i om ’ a * a fan pone ale ie ae Gf dt hin dian, Qaralies gisad 8 *: . : pn allies » tN ers Se ey _ " : t y wre ™ — ae ee . , : A « ode af ee : ea gir < i e J « a ee NM < -_~. ©: Nes ety * wits te paneer sol amid ea GR aE , ~~ ee ee er a Eis tae eapittor cmnst,, Ifedell County, 1 © = —S== ss Pebruary Term, 1900. ‘Chas. O'Dennel1 ps ae | Southern Railway Company. The defendant answering the complaint im this cause gays; That the allegations contained in the first paragraph there- eof are Sreesrne. : That the allegations centained in the second paragraph there- . of ate aves. Thet the allegations centained im the third paragraph thereef ind are true. That the defendant has no knowledge nor information sufficient te emable it to forme a belief as.te whether the allegations contained im the féirth paragraph are true or not true, and therefore denies the same, And fér a further answer and defence to said complaint defes- dant says, that im additien te the duties ef the empleyes as set out im the second paragraph of the complaint it was further the duty ef each and every ene of the empleyes engaged in carry ing rails in addition te obeying the order ef the saller when he called “drop the rail® te be en the leekout amd stand aside im order that the rail being dreppéd at the proper time should pot fall against him. That on the eccasien mentioned in the com plaint each and every one of the empleyes ether than the plain- tiff acted upen the call ef the caller and when he called “drep the rail* was given, they all stood away frem it except the plats- siff. He steed #till however, and the rail out his tee and it wag through the carelessness and negligence ef the plain« tiff Bimself that he was injured and net through fault ef any empleye ef the defendant Railread Soup any. And fer a further answer and defence to said complaint dsfea- N ieee ae a says, that plaintife contributed te his injury by his own “negligence as eet out in the rifth paragraph of the complaint. ” “ Vee tee Sener a law r ‘ . a“ i . ws * ‘ yf , es *, ‘Wherefore having fully answered, defendant demands that it ee hence. without = day and recever its cast. z SAGE MK ~- aetigs aes Dee's —<—<“-—<—<—— , 20.0 oe ae ae me ae ee ae ee me ee ee ee ee Atterneys fer Defendant. * rors nwo ali Yd Yrstek ett. of batatiatnos Whiatelg tude yeyas. tnad > tute Lames of? to Aqatssig AITLT eff mt to coe +s soneakiged ? a cet $SAF ahneriel tnshbaeteh ,herewema vi bit oniven er9ptered® e809 Bil tevoce: Das yeh deem ‘vodiiw eoned o5 ty o ‘ 3 » cee ee ee he + & ewe ee ee keine etuRBhbmoeteC tert avaen*iotta In the Superior Court. February Term 1900 © ee Case of Plaintiff tendered in lieu of: defendants case.” . es This was an appeal from a Justice Court tried: before Timberlake Judge 3 and a jury at yobruary Term 1900 of ‘Iredell Superior Court. There was r no pleading: The return of the Justice was set -out-in the record. The action was brought by the plaintiff to rewover the value of a mule shipped by the plaintiff at Kaneas City, Mo. to Statesville, ¥N.C. and killed in transit by the negligence of the defendant. The following was the evidence; Georgé S.Daniel testified as follows; that he bought the mules, twenty five in number in Kansas City to be shipped to Statesville ,N.C. over “<< $he connecting ltne# between the two points. That the contract between | him and the. Agent of the road at Kansas City, was that the whole freight qharges on the car load of mules would be paid at Statesville, N.C. upm delivery of the mules at Statesville, H.C. That the agent of the road at Kansas City told him that there existed an arrangement between the roads whereby the freight could be paid at Stateswille. Only twenty # four mules arrived at Statesville.One of them having been misccarried or killed as plaintiff had been informed. That upon the arrivalefr the car of mules at Statesville, plaintiff protested against receivinf ~ “them, because of the. killing or failure of = defendant to deliver “twenty five mules as contrcated, but being assued by the Agent of the Seutherh Railway, defend.nt, at Statesville, that the defendant would pay for the lost mule, he paid the freight on the whole lot, twenty fiw pat got only- twenty four. J.C.Sullivan was present at the time, That the freight. amounted to something like two hundred dollars or mors, that this sum of money was paid to Mr Coiner, agent at Statesville, | = whe said that the different roads had an arrangement betweon themselves | whereby. gach road interested in Aa, freights would receive its. propor E tionate parte: the freight “ - Fn mo wm rp plaintif© rested nis case. mt : prea eo een , re /- « “ sot the astondant offered the deposition of U. G.Marvel, who ~gentitied that he was the conductor of the train which hauled the plain ‘tiffs mules on the 16th of February 1898. That the mules were ship- ’ “ped to G. $ «Daniel at Statesville, ‘N.C. and that he xpaw this when he attached his oars to the Gar in which the mules were. There were tweny five. mules in tie car, “that when he first saw the mules at yansas City. before starting, they were all standing up and in good gondition He next saw them 21 miles f om Kansas City, where one of them was down with his left hind foot through the boards of t'e car, just above the water trough.That the mule had fallen down or was knowked down and was lying partly on his back and side. His foot was caught about 435 inches above the flodr of the car. That he got a saw and out the siding of the car to release the foot. The mule got ‘up on his fect and was all - right. There were no visible defects in the car. That at the next stop he examined and fourd the same mule down, tried to get it up but could “not. At the next stop the mule w&s dead and at Fort Scott the dead mule - was taken out. The defendant next offered in evidence a stock agreome nt Here the Clerk will copy the same. Defendant restéd. George S. Daniel was recalaéd----and swore that when the car in which he shipped the mules was tendered him at Kansas City, he declined to load in the same because of its condition, that it had a foot or more manure in it, tending to elevate the mules too high, or make thom more liable to get limbs caught in the openings, the outside slats and the | Dare placed in the oar. That there were loose slats on the outside of the car. That the employecs at Kansas City mailed up some of thom, but were told that the car was unsafe to ship mules in, The mule could not have kicked high enough to have gotten his foot fastened as it was “fastened extopt for the amount of manure in the car and allowed to remain. Tt @as & foot or more deep therein. Wo bill of lading was eet ¢ =f ~ me Cg oa og i “{seued to-me. I was told that I could travel on « regular passenger ee and that the mules would go through alliright, which I did eae 466. ‘suitivan, testified for the plaintiff, that he. was at the depot in ' Re = Stateevitie before the. mules were. dcliverea to the plaintiff and when “the plaintiff declined to receive them because of the number being ony Ba ‘the agent told him to: take. them, that the company would pay for .the “lost mule. That he was there qhex the freight was paid; that it was all Bata Xe: ‘D.M.Coiner, agent of the Southern, who said that it was the -agrecemnt and arrangement of the connecting lines for all the freight we be paid at the destination of the stock, and that the Souther woul “divide the freight among the different eompanies as their mileage was “in the carriage. There was evidence as to the value of the mule. | His. Honor charged the jury that if they beleived there was Sen! agreemnt between the different railroads over which the mules were shipped: and the Southern Hailway, defendent, whereby it was stipulated that freight. should be carried over the sevcral roads and that the charges might be paid at the end of the line where the freight was de- “~Tirered and the“ company receiving the freight charges would prorate the same among the different roads having carried the freight, in pro- ¥. portion to the number of miles each road carried the same, they should ~ anbwer the first issue yes. Defendant excepted to hbhis charge. ‘The issues submitted were; Ist-- Wes thére “an agreement between the Kansas City, Fort scott and . Memphis and Charleston R.R. Company and the Southern Wailway Company = ter their mutual benefit,by which they agreed to carry through freight em, ~ : over the respective lines-and thereby making said respective roads over ee said freight was carried responsible for the entire obligation 3 zsne contract? Snd=—Tes the plaintiff's mule killed while in transit by the negli- _ ~ genes of the Setentent, or by the negligence of either oeqneetias line? : Sré--What is the value of the mule? = first and second issues were answered yes, and the third issue vom ‘Here copy. Judgment . “Appeal to the Supreme Court. Notice of appeal waived, bond fixed at ne “SHis-00 and adjudged sufficient. “The foregoing statement of case on appeal is tendered as the case Ea appeal to the .Supreme Court in lieu of the case tendcred by the de- *fendant. Coal dant is Atty For. Plaintite. pre ;. {ae yh vine Pn os eke vl) 6<ae cpeodt; 38 eae b fiw ersten Fustiee court |rredei) county george S$. Daniels Vs | t |The Southern Railway. 6 W.0.Mi118 Justice of the Peace before whom this cause was trie ao certify that the following proceedings were had before me 2 on the 22nd ‘aay of august 1898 at the insatnee of the plaintiff issued a summons Yn his behalf and against the defendant for phe recovery of $120 principal @md interest the value of a mle leged to have been kiilea, said. summons returnable on the 27t! May of Auguat 1898. The eapse was continued by consent until th } day of Sept 1696 when the parties appeared before mé for trial | epresented by counsel, After hearing evidence in the case ani gument of ecG@insel, I rendwped judgment in favor of the pete d against the defendant for the sum of one hundred dollars nna interest and cost of action. rom which judgment the defmdmt gave notice of appeal to the Puperior Court in ppne Court, Notice of appeal waived I send herewith the summons which was treated as a eagp}aint ¢ , sept 12th 1898 LOMLE. J.Py c v. on - f s 4.9 Guide /tos.<04 Commission to take Deposition. —Printed and for sale at Tae LanpMank Jon Orrice, Statesville, N. C. ae CAROLINA, a In the Superior Court. HW Leéudlatlt.... GREETING: We reposing special trust and confidence in your integrity, do authorize and empower you to And the deposition in writing, by you 80 taken, the same to transmit, sealed with ygur seal, to our ly Clerk Superior Court. ‘ North Carolina, In Superior Court. Tredell County. G4.8.Daniel , vs, t Seuthern Railway Company. To G.S,Daniel, the plaintiff abeve named:- You are hereby notified that en Shux Wednesday, the First dey of Pebuary, 1899, in the effice of the General Preight Agent of the Kansas City, Port Svett, & Memphis Railread Company, in the City of Kansas City, State of Missouri, and County of Jack son, before Johm H, Crandall, Commissioner, the defendant will take the depositions of U.@.Marvel, J.R.Prisben and Pat Hughes, to be read in evidence in behalf of the defendant , upon the tria) ef the above named cause, when and where you may be present and cross-examine if you see proper. ‘The taking of said depesitiens will be continued from day te day, if necessary. pF. Pmt Me TG 5-312 Coumsel fer Defendant. | sate ‘of. Missourt: : *: [eomnty. of Jackson — to Panta tr. vs Pending in the Sup2zrior Court of bene iy s. Iredell County, State of North Car- pees ETE RL Yer Ae ry emerrte nam Pursuant to the annexed, eomni ssi. on t0.ma dirceted;. £ JOHN H. Crandall, Comnisstoner undar the \authori ty granted tome by th said ¢ommissi on, on the first day of February, A.D. 1899, in the Offica of tha Genaral Freight agent of the Kansas City, Port Se ott & Mamphis Raitlrnad Company, at Kansas City in the County of : Jackson and State of Missourt, no eounsal for plaintiff being presant, and the defendant being represented by Mr. U.G.Soule, pro- eaa2d2a to take the daposition of Mr. U.G.Marvel, who being first duly..sawarn on the Holy Bvangalists, to speak the mie truth, the whola tr uth, and nothing but the truth, betwem the parties named in the said commission, dzposzs as follows, to-wit: Interrogatory 1. State your nama, age and residanee? Answer, U.G.Marvel; aga 34 years; rasid2nee Kansas City, Jaekson County, Missouri. Interrogatory 2. In what business were you engaged on the 16th of Fabruary, 1898? Answer. I was at that time in th employ of the Kansas City, Fort Seott & Memphis Railrrad Company as [reight eonduetor of train No. 5S. My run was from Kansas City to Springfield, Missourt. Tntarrogatory 3. State what you know, if anything, with re- gard to the ear load of mulas shippad from Kansas City on tha 16th of Fabruary, 1898, over tha Kansas City, Ft.Seott & Mamphis rail- road, consigned to G.S.Daniél, Mamphis, Tamm., or to G. S. Danial, Statesvilia, North Carolina? If you had anything to do with the handling of such ear load of mules, plaasa state what you had ta do with them, what happened £0 them an the route, and if any of them wera injarad or Ri gat on the routa, state wh m ani how it d wk . a ; happend. 3 | AVSPER. oy know ‘that im my train which. laft Kansas City, Missou- ri, at about 9.85 P.M. on Fenruary 16th, 1898, there was. a ear : load of mules consigned to G.S.Daniel at Statesville, North Caro- Bi lina. The way bill of the ear eallad for 25 mules. When I saw ete ; the ear in-my train at Kansas City; bafore™ starting, the mulzs ware all up and. se2mad in good condi tion: The next time I saw the ear load of mules in question was at Olathe, whieh ts about 21 milas from Kansas City, and which plaesa@ we reached about an hour after leaving Kansas City. Olathe was our first stop after aor Kansas City. I looked at the ear of mules on arrival of bie train there and found ona mule up near: ‘the. front of the, ear, on the right hand sida, with tts laft hind foot through thie 4 Spaced bate a tind of the @iding boards of “the ear, JRee- above the Fi water trough, whara the foot had become edinght Tha. muh a Aad fal ten command? turned partly over after getting down, and was lying , partly on his back and partly on his side on tha floor of the ear in apparent good condition. Tha mula’s foot was caught about 43 inches above the floor of the @ar, showing that he had.bem kieking. IT had to gat a saw and eut the siding of tha ear to re- lease the mul2's foot, and afterwards got the mule up on to his feat and as near as I eould tall the mule saamed to ba all right. Thara wara no vistbla dafeets in the ear that I eould find on ax- amination. This ear was No. 928 C.C.C.C. Nothing wmusual in the running of mj train oeeurred betwasn Kansas City and Olathe, and wa raaehsz the latter placa about on schadula time. After a stop of about 33 0@ 3 minutas at Olathe, we pulled out for Paola, our next stop, 27 miles from Olathe, whieh place we radehed about 40 minues after leaving Olathe, nothing out of tha ordinary having oeeurad on tha trip. I axamined the ear of mules again at Paola and found tha sama mula down again. I trited ; to- gat him up there, but ecouldn’t gat him up; he would’ t move ie ‘ ~49 2 - * ° * ; — > >; ~e eemea to ba in pretty bad shape. Wa stopped at Paola about seven minut7zs and then want on to Boycourt, our naxt stop. We reached there about 40 minutes after leaving Paola. JI axamined the ear on reaching Boycourt, and found the mul? d@zad. I then want on | to Fort Seott, which placed 2 reached at 12,55 on th? morning of th2 17th of February, wh2re the ear of mul2zs was taken out of the train in ordar that the dead mule might be removed, and that ws the last I saw of it. Interrogatory 4, If you mad2 any raport of what oecurred toa car load of mules, or any one or mora of them, shippad at Kansas City, on the 16th of F2bruary, 1898, ov2r the Kansas City, Ft. Seott & Memphis Railroad Company, eonsigned to G..S.Daniel at Mamphis, Tenn. or Statesville, North Carolina, to any officer of said road, please attach a cony of such report to this daposition, and ask th2 Commissioner to so mark and designate it that tt ean be identified and made a part of your daposition. If you mde such r2port, state when you made it, and whether or not it was signed by you, and th? facets thearain sat out are true. Answer. On Fabruary 17, 1898, I mad2#a report of the oceurrence to the mule in the ear load raf2rred to substantially as sat out in my answer to the pracading question. I madz this report on printed form No. 900 of tha Kansas City Ft. Seott & Memphis Rail- road Company, signed it, and mailed to H.S.Mitehall, Division Suparintandant of said Railroad Company at Fort Seott, Kansas. I kapt no copy of this raport and have not sam it sinee I sant it to Mr. Mttehall and do not know whate that report is now. The facts stated in that raport are true. Tha foragoing daposition of U.G.Marvel was sworn to and sub- seribad bafor? ma at tha tima and place men tha eaption. 4 Commissioner. bas font KX-TE— 2 yrs e 2 Be hoe ag ' =, oe Sn a3 gue § HTN 4, Be 4a §, § Sewn Bnhng Bi, Bm Rh, a. free JH o+-« § = L&ao tf ZaorL 6 eee. eee, Pee i” tr CLK 4 ASC. 3 Pt Fi oe on Cott, oo tin 4 In the Superior Court, | trade County - February Terg, 1900, OF oak 8. Daniel we -. GASR FOR SUPREME COURT, Southern Railway Company. | This is an appeal fron ‘the Justice's ‘Gourt tried before his honor Tigperilake, Judge’ and a jury, at the February Term, 1900, of the Superior Court of Iredell County. No pleadings were filede The return of the Justice to the appeal is set ont in the record pro per. The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of a mile shipped by the plaintire at Kansas City, Me. to Statesville, N.o., and alleged to have been killed in transit by the negligence of the defendant. The evidence was as follows; George 8. Daniel, the plaintiff, as a witness for himself testified that he bought twenty-five miles in Kansas City te be shipped over the Kansas “ity, Fort: Scott and Memphis Railroad and connecting lines to: Statesville, N.°. That the contract between him and the Agent of said K.C. 7.8. & M. R.Re Cos made in Kansas City, was that the whele ef the freight en the ear lead of nules should be paid in Statesville, N.% upon delivery ef miles at that point. That the miles vere accordingly shipped, but when they reach- od Statesville there were only twenty-four, one ef them having been killed, as the plaintiff had been informed somewhere between Kansas _ Ofty and Fort, Beett while still in possession ef the eaid K.0.¥.4. ‘& MRR. Cos That when the mules arrived at Statesville he protest o4-ageinet receiving them, because of the Killing of ons of them, but being assured by the Agent of the Southern Railway Company at States ville that the dead mle would be paid for, he paid the freight en the @Role lot ef twenty-five miles and took the twentyefour. That the whele ef the freight amounted ta some two hundred and thirty edd dellare, that this emeunt was paid to Mr. Coiner, Agent at States ville, who told Sim the plaintiff, that he, “einer, would chotyeae am the money among the several radiroad companies over whéees routes the mules were transported. 9 a ve rat a ! ti thea offered the deposition or U.4. Marvel, who swore that he was the conductor of the train which hanled plaintiff's “.males on the 16th of Yebruary, 1898. That there were twenty-five 4 mules in the care. That when he first saw the miles at Kansas “ity before starting, the miles were all up and deemed in good condition. The next time he saw them it was at a station about 22 milos from Kansas City. At bhat point he found one of the miles down in the car with its sins hind foot through the” epace between two of the side boards of the car, just above the water trough where the foot had been caught. That the mile had fallen down and turned partly over after getting down and was lying partly on ite back and partly on its side on the floor of the car. His foot was Caught about 43 inches above the floor of the @a®, showing that he had been Rieking. That he had to get a saw and cut the siding of the car to release the mile’s foot. That afterwards he get the mile up to his feetand he seemed to be all right. There were no visible defects in the car, that he could find on examination. That at the mext stop he examin- ed the car again and found the same mle down again, tried to get him up, but sould not. ‘That at the neat Stop he examined the car again and found the mile dead, and that at Fort Scott the dead mle was taken out, The defendant also offered in evidence a bill ef lading fer said Béad of miles, issued at Memphis by the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, in which were the following werds and figures; indicated by the. serie. wae ent oe not be taken at, the Awe mot more than 16,000 pounds per car, unless the Shipper and the Agent execute the following tre LIVE STOCK CONTRACT. Mée Station, 2/19-~-.-.. 1588. Received by the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, of G@.8. Damiel ----~<9.-~-.---—5 the fellowing described Live Stock; Consigned as above and to be shipped upon the following contract, terms and conditions, which are admitted by me to be just and reasom able. , WHEREAS, The Memphis & Charlesten Railroad and connecting lines transport Live Stock only at first class rate, except when, in con- sideration of a reduced rate by the car lead, the owner and shipper assumes a certain risk and obligations speciéied below. NOW}? FORE, in consideration of the said Memphis & Charleston Railroad and its connecting lines agreeing to transport said Live Stock at the reduced rate of ----- §112,00----- per car lead from Memphis to Statesville, N.C,and furnishing free transportaion to the owner or his agent, on the train with said stock, f so shippes in car load quantities, I agree that said Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company is only bound to carry said live stock to its foreign station at --- Chattanooga-- and there hate the same ready to be delivered and unloaded by the Génsigneé Or tipon his order, or to such Go or Carrier (if the same is to be forwarded beyond said station) whose ‘lames may be considered as forming a part of the route to the desti- nation to which said Live Stock is consigned, and I oareonr agree that the responsibility and liability ef said Memphis & Charleston Railroad, and any and all connecting lines or companies as common carriers, shall cease at the ends of the respective roads; and I further agree that the Mem§is ani Charleston Railroad and semnect- ing transportation companies shall net be, and shall not be held, liable for-any lesses, injury, damage, or depreciation, whieh the ' animals or either of them suffer in consequence of either ef them being weak or escaping, er injwring themselves or each other, er in consequence of overloading, heat suffication, fright, viciousness, or of being injured by fire, or by the buming of any) material, while in the possession of said réilread, er any connect transportation company; and I expressly release said Memphis & ston Railroad and connect transportation companies, from all éther damages in- cidental to. the railroad and water transportation of said steck, which shall be established by poistive evidence to have been caused by the nelgigzence of same officer of agent of said Memphis & Charles tom Railroad, or connecting transportation companies, ‘ And I further ee that in event said Memphis & Chalrlesten Railroad, or said comnecting transportaion companies, shall not become or be held liable for any reason, or en any accamt, for any injury to, or ef the death of any of said stoek, the valuation of injury er loss shall in no et execed the following: Por Stallions or Jacks, each; fer herses er miles, $100 each; for Cattle, $30 each; and for other stoek, $5.00 each, Which amoun¢s, it is agreed, are as much as said stoek herein agreed to be tramsportated, @re reasenably worth. And I further agree that I will lead, unload or transfer said stock at my own @xpemse and risk; and that im the event ef accidents and delays, from any cause, whatever, I will, at my own expense feed, water and take eare ef said stock; er cause the same to be done for me. i further agree that the business ef the Ge Memphis & Charles ten Railread © » amd connecting transportation ies, ehall mot be delayed by the detention of trains to lead or reload said stock, for any cause whatever, but cars may be left at any station, upon request ef the person in charge ef the same, to be forwarded by next freight train if he so directs, I further agree t I will see that said steek is securély placed in the cars od, and that the cars are securely and pre- perly fastened so as BS ates the escape ef stock therefrom. "I further agree ¢ the presentation of this Bill ef Lading bs and Contract i be oufficient evidence of ownership to relieve ad releate' the said Railread and connect transportaion companies; from all liability om account ef wréng delivery, but shall not be held to eperate against the right ef said Railroad ami connecting ‘transportation es, to demand, if they elect, identification . ef the party this 8421 © lading and contract, befere dé liverging said stock te him. further agree that the said Railread ami connecting ere at. tation os shall met be liable fer any damages or : may qcour to said steek during the time the same may unload- oct out of the cars eof said Railread and connecting transporte: on @8.. ie age I he acknowledge that I have examined, and hereby acegpt le P ‘ wa 7 % ’ » / e ~ fut i aed Se : *. 3 y : ‘ . x - : , ‘5 se oe J ) for sueh transportation, the car or care provided by said Railroad and to be used for the shipment of said stock, as suitable and suf- ficient therefor. mys .DMfarther acknowledge and admit that I have, and may exercise, . the option of shipping ender a bill ef lading ever the Memphis & Ghableston Railread, ef unlimited liabilsty, at ahigher rate of freight, but prefer to ship under this contract, because of lower rate, and through &1i11 of lading. In witness whereby, t have veluntarily and understandi ly sign od the Osc Duos Saag ile for a valuable consideration, this 19th ® day of Feby. 1 @i8e = 6 L : ! er and shipper W.G.V. Gatohele =~ a ente ewe we ae Oe ew we Oe cad For the M, & ©.ReRe ' (md on the Back thereef was the following; LIVB BTOCK CONTRACT. Wo. ef Daye Bi 1 le <3 ~ enn eo een oo = oe eee oe omwe Date ecnaeeecee 2/As ewrrcre ore nceron~~--3 806. Abn. s Care ES ar Opa A a *fefehdant rected. . The plaintiff, George 5. Daniel, swore in reply, that when the car im which he shipped his mes was ¢emdered him by the K.C.?.8. eM. RoR, Oo, at Kansas City, he protested against loading his males in said car, because of its condition, that it was filled up more than a feet decp with manure, so as to raise the miles high enough to enable them to kiek ever the cress bars put lengitudisally. across thé sides and ends in the inside 6f the car to prevent the muleq,from getting their feet caught between the outside slate in soane they should kick, And further;;becanse there were loons: ea : ¢ Mee ‘ ‘ . ti V " glats on the-outside of the car. That he had the employes of the bo Company to nail up some of the slats and fasten them, but that the car was etal ina dolapidated condition. That the mile could net have kicked highor r @nough to have gotten his fobt fastened as it was fastened, except for the amount ef manure allowed to remain in the car, That is was more than a foot deepe - ‘The Judge charged ‘the Jury that “at they believed that there “mae an arrangement between Porte Scott int Kansas City and Memphis Railroad Company, ‘the Memphis & Charleston Railread Co. and the Southern Railway Oompany, whereby it was atipulated that froight should be carried over these several reads and that the charges maght be paid at either end of the line amd the company receiving the charges whould prorate the same among the cennecting lines, they should answer the first issue, Yes. Amd to this charges Defeniant excepted The following iasues were submitted te the jury, to-wit; ist. Was there an agreement between the .-Kansas City, Pert Scott and Memphis and Chamgieston R.R. Company and the Southern Railway Company for their mutual benefit, by whieh they agreed to carry | ‘through freight over the respective lines and thereby making said respective roads over which said freight was carried respensible for the entire obligation of the contract. Rnd. Was the PlaintifffisgBe killed while in transit by the negli~ gence of the defeniant, or by the neBligence ef either cenmecting liné@s. Srde What is the value ef said mule?,. The first and second issues were anewered, Yes, and the third issue $100.00, ' There was a motion for a new trial. Motion refused and defendant excepted, and there was a judgment according to the ver~ dict-as ie set out in the record proper, Appeal taken by defendant, ' “Notice waived and bend in the sum ef $85.00 was Judged sufficient. a oe b Thirty days time given to defendant to file case for Supreme Court A and thirty days Shereafter to plaintiff to file counter case or * exceptions thereto. © uh a emo mw eww ae we we ee ew owe ee ~~ &ktternvsys for-c “i omongu® tol easo eff? oF sashrotob 1% novty emt? cyab ysatAT 20 6aso tesns00 oLft of Tiisninlg o3 rS8stHeTEds aysb ysrt? oa eOZ010KRF annlsIqeoxs ‘ ‘ *'8 . } oP 7 hes ~ee eee ee FP eee wee ee ee ee em oe & & & ot ‘ os . » as ae “* 3 : . ee ee ee ee ee NORTH CAROLINA. a MOM ge nn sos ODD 144. SUPREME COURT. oneal This cause came ncaa the we ae 7 Le County:—upon consideration whereof, this-Coust-ie-oF-opinicn-that-there ene OL andr Kalle I'f acusk. Chat It is therefore.considered—aad adjudged by the Court here, that the 7 aera een accessed JUDGMENT. a yy to the said Superior ra e-theintent-thettie. Aad. alka. thet. th watthin 2 see: OMAR hh —— ui ie the costs etmtempgpmet in this Court incurred, 7 OP to-wit, the sum of..... - MeL 100 dollars ($ fe a ), and let execution issue therefor. A Troe Copy: Clerk of the Supreme Court. awn Paha BP ee a ee —_— em eel ad o EE a <4 ef eat 2 oh Zé oh a 7 Lafisrein 4 Olle Cari eo oe Saimin 190 te: Slavic Ll torrfolaciziecg ahha gee : 1 Shak ak chi Cacia Keres afles prenbacriede te frrveeeh Lice Row bere a paihrrrt Orfamalin| Arrecg Gusuicrs uc de bbaL. x Nok Gatsbun at hey sftirahde auk hack Ombre Ka Lu ff pralpeeds rummscg, Cc Crier jie Po aw et | Phe teec ke teen O aba borg tia, Chain Lét, - thé gach. rac porrA Corfacra Lior farses (Wirlei a Stank pasted, ch Lu eo laa, of the Six. of Yar shinee’? 7 is ) ae Phat vic he mmik of marek 1ge0 Aas Pane, te Sela E fl ave tufunk by la Meany 4 ee ge a farrit m/ ch, pail watprrh abwk J mb, tard he hefprg He Ebnnw—L. a” Tox Me felniulf uc de bach onmnk a Mmaneh 1gee the hay tr heh he uve ing tng Lysig farebgale aude fitfl- rine che. Orael of di eaid, Snehirn lait way Om foouy ah @ Sorit abut goritig tack of Ae Mfoey hroryh eek oe agseks | toe ers : Ewtrarh av Khe eaih Gee ak f~ wv Ar bairern x ah k oe the Alec. hacky” ao falainlpy co uifermi ah Leben, LE | Re he pack felauh ff Geog « aL | faaLiathy fen) he pelo t. brrck ok he | gail, Lfrutat afe facavacthiy ca a Alf ues Bek felacec le ca | tan forrcko uuthe belisvo ciel the geid reg enees ark he tufhewur oy Ke aah Laie Raw KE ads felacilf whihh ke cone hie hyeciz frre hake , aud, 4 ath afefetar acer At fbiae Lifer, dhe, Levit, 20 —fnconite , or by pemromale_ teria by recy Lhe Aihfplece ae affmrah, aud hx a4 furof bork rik , tench haw arr Meyrin, 7 herd L de flac bf Ay ol tecsig he mmreohrn fF He pack traci ¥ Core ait eff y thi Caner Sufore drackirig hear lap fe forvnenginn wb foorhonkg wy park Lc At hy Le aack tguniror anh fi, aeerecahis ournAiry of ariumry im gad hracin Nek Af aweetaeay hia Carn, for herrea acc Ahig cece , aude Mak, Chez facfu~ 4r%e nl, 4 ark has ~~ q Car< ee. Mite een Ohacke 4 ev = ee a ee co /, nag eng , 7 Zt Plant bs tifrmacks anh bela. chez Yuaid, acho rc fflached dhe cat piiiinn whee auitk a aw Kh oait falaily Cen, frrctral: ufo w foclen x te xfer dake sh alta lato ametaes SL ak” Lous. Me Luperrny arr peor be hie wer a high Lorry BD hl pack: Kaze ane citenlein ie ad ke flaviiGf ff ww felaichy 2b a , al ake Ax pace Tada. Gk ae we hat dhe teflon, ne of che Afintant am | 7 Stites 4 Rair Gar. oe ee ke ee. Ee Ab ay BS fig ceria h> Ly A mag hgeicn 9 he Ayfendnnd £0 ss Ss aks eee ee eg Bak fi Saag he PAS his fo. chs ft If, inrumLs nthe r-_4. . we Affer. ta—k Lin he fu ty prs te <2 k fj fo oe f+ , bn nT BS A De as EK fb — Oe aad ARE RO ra eee P AI ee pt me a ete — ie mang, cm aeoieed | Boreham Rishon F i PO eB bali hee Kew wyouiziah de Ne “4 ke Plait v. Be atm pth acl on ars Ooh ha Law ager h 6 enn onan oud Chart Mie. mF ce Gua aide. . / ee Aneta? Shi 24.day f APre Pro Ok Aeondrent by heave of Court at February Terr, 1901. 1/2 And for a further answer and defence to said action the defendant alleges that the plaintiff contributed to his injury by his own negligence in sitting on the end of a cross-tie on defendant's road at a point where he could not be seen by defen'ant's servants and agents in time to avert the injury. In the Superior court, May Term, 1900, _ eke Az SV ER ) ; Spr: Sg hs ae a,” 2 ; ean 7 on tn nen ie Pe leitant aewering the complaint in tnis Cause BEYB, re eal he That the allecations contained in the first paragraph are truse That the allegations contained in the second paragraph are net true and they are denied. That the & allegations contained in the third paragraph are not true and they are deniede That the allegatiens contained in the fourth paragraph are not true and they are deniede That the allegations contained in the fifth paragraph afe mot true and they are denied. Defendant has no knowledge nor infermation sufficiess to en- able it to form a belief as te the truth ef the allegations eentained in the ‘bixth paragraph an@ therefore denies the SAME . \.- | And for a further answer and defence to said action, defen- dant says; that plaintiff was the author of his own trouble; that he got drunk and lay down on or near defendant's track at a point where he could not be seen by the employes ef the defendant in time to avoid the injury. ” And fer a further anewer and defenses to said action, defen- day says, that plaintiff contributed eo his injury by his own reckleseness and negligence in getting drunk and lying down on defendant's track att a point where he could not be seen by the ‘aefendant's employes in time to avoid the in~. jury. . | Wherefore having fully ansvered, defendant demands 3k that it Ke without day and recover its cost. ee de SO Hee ee BP SSPE Bee ernest eo we awvrewe aod ina: wf defendant. Nerth Carolina, } Wake County. ) A.B. Andrews beging duly sworn, says that he is an officer ef the defendant, Southern Railvay Company, pe-wit; the First Vice President thereof; that he has read the foregoing an- ewer and knows the contents there@@; that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated on infommation and belief and as to those matters he believes it to be true. I T A rttdenade Bworn to and aunowrsbes, before me thie the OT Ciliditiigy Mi aimameb trabreteb ,berowaia vil -.ttvad etoteret¥ ef800 eff tevoo” bits ys Suodsiw of It tai nana ee = + 4 @— 4 Oe www eee er Oe ee ~““———~ ee ee eee ew ere we wSabite' lel rot ayerrrortA fr efti fois) nM2%0n ( ( ( eterno? eleW ms af ef tals eyse porowe \Lirb yaiged awenhrA .f A oft gttw-o@ ,yragioD yaw ish imietsu0® yf .usbreteb 13 Io te9 ls to @tus 4tloye10. weft baer ast of sald jtoerel? Imebizer% eoiV¥ fanlt to ons ut omis orf) t.37.3 {Ber 0::° ataetsoo eri awordt bom; ewe molsarmotit. 20 bO é lew anettart « as $qeoxe ,ejlelwors awo tt aevel ed oe. ate? 1 080 .¢ oF @A a 7 Led its vs rn Allen Davis, Southern Railway Company | -. ISSUES: en , ‘ My de eet. : — athe Se si bis beak 5 . - . ¢ hs ae err , 1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligencé of the defendant - #8 ableged in the complaint? a Answer: Yu~ a 4. Did the plaintiff oontribute to his injury by his own negligence? Answer: 3. If sa, might the defendant, notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence, by the,execise of proper care, have avoided the injury? viet Oh oi: ee data lee <class ia, aan etal Ae EO oe a we gen nroeestinnan=-tapaamee-enieer ceeeepegisiineainey vaaan 7 ee ser 2# it .» Answer: 4. What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained? Answer: ro - — a see ne ee ee - = eee ~~ - - a oe Ae gee. ee et et ef ta ou o. Cony j nt ik Weta a >i ow a Of floutdf ow ; = fa laspo fk aan Bee Essa le as wale om dle ra a, furtett hes se sn dias facut ti af has, Bal on chs rag ma Eiichi (4 fe , As_focss Blasudes 04.0 ae Or ae clo Ate Uf. (ust frac GD. a> a Aafhey tires, an lit. 7» QE: AOE BL Me ia sat Hf eee — dha ‘etal 28% clay day of Ce ptity hl td) nee rhe! shox ie le 4, he wana fs wi gets ast haf dh de cetual lagu cage" ¥ Cant ns i 1 ps i. PF sat le tale ag it ) ae r hut th glk thea . cane caplet go sac EG zo. fi pi ight Dima Abii * the «fo effing, 2 oy Pog She. ee A esl Zz pag ae a: cet thes ase” Gass te [at fasttcres bt of On fat seaahet Be sel oy a if ve, a a Aa olga fd bece We gage } Ck tT OL eo Vie GEL Oa Kh mage” / _ 2 he ELT. Cok 2: he geil oa 2 _ Pae (2 7 ae ee ae cecacemel Lid: se tel hag om Ca taal hc be srs trol pa ee ih cline, A fervifal dud bacegucwrie a ee ohm tole Ba "in laced ) ‘Worth Carozina, | : at Superior Court, _ Iredell County. | fbn a | i . Southern Railway Companys February Term, 1900, is The defendant answering the Sytaint in this cause says} That the allegations contained “in the first paragraph are twuce That the allegations contained in the second paragraph are are true. That the allegations contained in the third paragraph are net true and they are denied. 1 Andi for a further answer and defence to said action defendant aays, that whatever injury plaintiff sustained was caused by his own negligence and recklessness in alighting froma mov ing train, which he éaw and knew to be moving when no command nor invitation was given by any officer, employe or agent of the defendant Company to do 80. And for a further answer amt defence to said action, defendant. says that giasatirr contributed to whatever injury he sustained by his own negligence ami recklessness in alighting from a moving train, whieh he saw and knew to be moving, without any command er invitation so to de, given by any officer, empleye or agent ef defendant Company. Wherefore, having fully answered, defendant demands that it go without oy and recover its cost. Chee Ros aia: 9 ease << ee e242 ee eo eeeweeene -— LRP Attarneys for defends Werth Carolina, ee hes Agdrees Being Guly sewrn says, that he is an officer of the defendant Southern Railway Company, to-wit; Pirst Vice Presi= > gent thereof; that he has read the foregoing answer and knows the om “tants thereof; and that the sane is true te his own knowledge, com * a Z ; PP e% « ae Poke = se oe ‘ “f 3 a i + s ie SM en? ae as to those. matters therein stated on information and belief and as to those matters he believes it to be true. Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 2Z aay ofZ - 1900, - * mwbowh ra ToOnepeL BeTTAS.\ Co —<- < as. + bees yerred hrs | nob gemorat mo hegssa waar eiettam e2on?t of veins ed o2 31 eovetled on sxessam eeodts ees My ” .: \ i es ‘ ee * ‘ BA) age Moy 5 Peet ~ \ ~~! er es v r a ort e1oted heditavadue baa of mrowe 00@L + as ys To yah oS ady air? ~ a. ~~ ary 4 *% aie al OT ‘ a hae - * * A ia eT’ Lament Wa 5 Thompson # vs. ee Instructions prayed by the Plaintiff. Railway Company # : l. " It is negligence in a railroad company if its engine- man suddenly and violently moves a passenger train at a time and place where passengers may be expected to be petting on and off a train, - and this is 80, although the train has not come to a full seneeenmertes oer = Jn bearntone meant: epemengens > ’ stop, but is very hawks moving. Nance vs. R. R. , 94--619. 2. " It is not contributory negligence per se, for a pas- senger to alight from a train which has almost come to a full stop at a regular depot. Ibidem p. 619. 3. If you find from the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's train,’ and his destination was Elmwood, and that plaintiff had warned the conductor repetedly that he desired to get off at Elmwood, and that the conduct- ator had promised plaintiff to see that plaintiff was allowed to get ote at Elawoods.-and. ‘that the station siznaé? was sounded for Elmwood ~and the train Slowed up Tor Clmwbod) Coming nearly, - but not entirely to a full stop- you are instructed that the plaintiff had the right to expect that the conductor would see that plaintiff got off safely ‘at Elmwood", and that the plaintiff had the right to draw the reason- BL 4 able inferenee that by such slowing up and stoppage of the train, that it vas intended to let the pla ntiff get off the train-- at Be) least that. the pleintirr, under the circumstances( if vou so find . stem - might draw anen inference -- that such stoppage and slowing ( if you find such occurred), “ was an implied sug- as ae nanetor that the plaintiff could get orf bani SFaine i" at. act... apon.the faith of such sugce or ne fe CHEE He Shira get off safely eee ’ «a is ee ee fe p “ance: ee + R. R. 94--623, - -: that! the conductor had promised to put off plaintiff at Elmwood, and - 4. If you find from the greater weight of the evidence phat the! atpnal was given and the train showed up at or near the sta- _ tien, and that the plaintiff, in good faith, acted upon the implied Po stion then given by defendant's agents to alight, and at such gt es a PA et ein the speed @f the ‘train was suddenly inereased without warning to | (2) plaintiff » whereby he was thrown to the ground and injured, such sudden and unexpected movement of the train was negligence, and if you so find, you should answer the first issue “yes", and the Becond”no". Nance vs. R. R. , 94--623; approved Noles vs. R. Bas 102--7; Hodges vs. R. R. 120--555; Hinshaw vs. R. R., 118--1047; Watkins vs. R. R., 116--961; Crawford vs. R. R., 111--600; Solomon vs. Manhatten Rs.R. Co., 103 N. Y., 457; 4 Cent. Rep. 775; & L. R. Aw, 117 at top of p. Damares. 5. If the preceeding issues are found in favor of the plaintiff, and you come to pass on the last issue as to damages, you are instructed that the plaintiff is entiteled to recover as damages, one compensation for all injuries, past and prospective, in consequence of the defendant's wrongful or negligent a cts: these are understood to embrace indemnity for aetwed—nurseing—and medical expences, amd loss of time, or loss from inability to perform ordinary labor , or capaci- ty to earn monry: plaintiff is to have a reasonable satisfaction , if he is entitled to recover, for loss of both bodily and mental powers, or for actual suffering, both of body and mind, which are the immedi- ate and necessary consequences of the injury." Wallace vs. R. R., 104---442. 4. (1) If you find from the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff Thompson “was caused to believe that the signal was blown for the stop at Elmwood, and that hd was led to believe that the trainwas slowing up to stop, and that he was thus impliedly invited to leave the train while moving at a slow rate of speed at, or near, or just beyond, the usual stopping place for passengers to alight , he had the right to presume that it was safe for him to do so. When a passenger , by the wrongfyl act of the company ( if you find such act), is compelled to chose between leaving the txatmx cars while they are moving slowly, or submitt ing to the inconvenience of being carried by the station where the company agrees to take him, the com- pany is liable for the consequences of the choice, provided such choice is not execised negligently or unreasonably, and it is not want of ordinary care in the passenger to use the only means to get off permitted by the defendant, uniess the danger was apparent to a man of ordinary prudence." Walker vs. Vicksburg R. R. Co., 7. le Re Ap, p. 117 (2) and (3). (3) 4: (2) If you find that the train had slowed up so that plaintiff might reasonably suppose that he could safely get off the train and that he execised prudence in doing so, and that about the time he disembarked, the train was suddenly moved forward and jerked, so as to throw plaintiff on the ground, this would be negligence in the defendant, and you would answer the first issue " yes", and the Y a ae hird "“yes". ets) Ir you rina that it was the duty of the depot Fad nn evar, e gent at Elmwood to be at the station whe: the train arrived to put 2 hy off passengers, and to have a light there to light up the station rhe Y sianaa and that he was not there and nad not provided such light,- ; he % am you find that but for such failure on his part, that the plaintiff ' ¢ . Maha not have been injured,- and that this was tne proximate cause of the injury, fou should answer the first issue "yes", the second < no", and the third “yes”. x Phew Vig an wed 97 £2 rae Cen, The Copugicd - Aran. jp A Weetalea fey Auer #2. JO -~ 4ST, so. x a? Pek sme y ky Lag Kos OA hed Me tomo Li fete n frsrneyer m Pos fe EL wer .. , A wo Sh pS lah an, oh Tn. fr-tF yA A Rk was m . that the Ter orn ded ant a Oe SP Ted ihm Lal sored) aA tom The Brn nm rhinh fabrfy um” a i He = SO Te Hit page — a Ik. Gu TDs ale kte eo wns faapt ae Oo ah te Cran pep ——- Comend 4. FEIDE. bak cs é ea Be f= teh Th TA tans jn cee an Bhar Ta™ L falTf vy 2/2 Coma estar aiteke ravine . ee aoe a ~ smsstesscinreetetnononetnarapmmnatinnescesinonestpnesttaaae . r ‘ § j nde . i ‘ ‘ { y ‘ j . ’ sam wea Rom , 3 cena banner Se SRO = LN OP OAR, “nen enema toectamanepemerenn anda . a seiegibepiangninn Wiemiesiiin - enn Ne hen NERS RAY taint cence tebe Cate | none = > ‘ . 7 + S 4 . a Rb: gage onic trindtel. Yt» vs Bn 2.2 ¥ jas oles 3 Be paPinn STD OS , ey me. mach Siphon cae ae ani as oot. . Trig. Wn Dan cgld rhe... AapfroreLo ED. nik 3 pp Maruk polos fu feroanope| fr ahvghh rR faloas om Gry) 24 & Sete om Wert vf a Vo phat fr mm A oar hrned Bron. ra wrt FL frm phat for m- CS Ban. wee Pha fron. bh Yat Ne ann ie, yet uff T Orme fobre. . Agen aia ae re ey Lt Aa »: nate te wth Omn CRIES ia : LD kere a We Mace som g Y 4 "a os? ‘Aten Ly inet, fr bt, Crea 27 y. I> nb st ep pi depend aon | teh i fot a An Mtg ot gored Trine pais A mR ID fk wn pee Meg end wre ptr tei ~ bi olla at. Sie. af gee : ITA nek gin) YO tm ew bn (mod -~ Oud oh oceiil. a Bann Be 1Yn> oP i2 ; 63 MAan~ 2p jay. c 4 eae site hs i (££) ie ei tonne et at. £o wend —— me bedi: — ee Ts ie y Obdterr sr 22) ie se ems mH Cok take 9 sift: ) Daa ee Ps as a ey mA bra 24 Hf - YY ln OX Cen ew Tr ed _ a peg h of tre thee AWD) Rr ar aN Qn nredhirem perth 2 fp moped rege >». Cz | ae fA ded be mut an dang 23. Anan fap ita) data . 3° Linnve- dade - Mined bho, ttt > 2” 3t A, ani ew rf4--2.0 pe 4 pon Pi se eC a * pp iff Bac Anam ‘ es me feet | bee eS Lait te 4 b Me ott 5 | Ba Cnn eae “4 nace’ PA on 5. Ree i pen wilt Mh rotate - J—. aes as fe bh. AREA pa | “6 (vy (hr Rin J £69 are A Onrk — (Mr. f Rrnmmicditeny - Ces reg pi ten aaah Cie Aw — Q Per vars, Bony oa whi tron. atapger 2 es. RL.» | tk Pa, C4 A442 i. ff Sagi re ieee baer » ‘uae fg Riad fey ede Ot ped at ag ee ow“ Fk. aie — Pasion - Obie Staged “Ther Bidankwoek Ohana mace Rae. “4 Bess drirtl, Laren. Eran Ona hang th Mia oper. oe Tak. : VG eary” Ta TT , Cee >. in Oe A y Riss yee. Apt bp ?) (\ Gan. he marc ye © a Penson as + = Nd Dede) want book % Pomel oA 4 es : nw ahh fF Ure Oke oY tool Jo ti Brn t) oma Ont, af ~ We SFLAY4LA aa Ses . oe ee sihina Ee Sigil: | of 2 » Stops Ba phen. JW tn foben oof he PPS oll (oe WAZ Ud a. LF Te te, ie Oe Ep Re Pd. Liglt hnaran cng wit. © Me Ts anwe... To, Incense LA Ee ke ee: Vv) .. P wars ye On ttt y J nm Thy tien J t>A4fQ WA. BON ue’. Pin iad, IMeo 2 bh nth Renn Sdn FOF Qos PDR pu? [el BAD? . CMY NV 5 eke ‘her o LA Ch. ure - -—+-——- ae RI mm o oe ae — a* er forma sees i ee {or ——- Ae *< iYora, 4 | F | b> Phy Pot: Ate Lh id North Carolina . Superior Court Iredell County Febry Term 1901 | J.W.Thompson, plaintiff. vs , Judgement... | Southern: paflway Co, defendant. | ; C | This; wause goming on to be heard ae this term of the Court | vet oie His Honor Brown, Judge and & sury upon the whole rien and bin ner a and the Jury having found as its verdiet that the plaintife was not injured by the negligenee of the defen; dantj t ce =~ Ya It t therefore eonsidered and adjWdged by the Court that the plaintiff reeover nothing by reason ef his action; that the defendant recover its cost expended and go hence without day. _§ BRP AHH ARDEA PARP RAE BAAR OS Judge Presid ings/. nw ~ ad re 7 - + > J.W,Thompson, platntf . . Se : é . . , ‘ ‘ DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND RECORDS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY This is to certify that-the micrographics appearing on this film are true and accurate reproductions of records originated during the normal course of business by the Bag Iredell County _ and consistof___: Railroad Records 1860-1928 The records begin with C._ZoOsY, 335.3 Z£KX2 4889 and end with_C,% O54. Yas, 5 /700- /Go/ It is further certified that the above records were microfilmed in conformity with the provisions of the General Statutes of North Carolina, chapter 8-45.1 and 8-45.4, “Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence Act”; that the microphotography processes accurately reproduce the records so microfilmed; that the film forms a durable medium for reproducing the original, if necessary, and that the film used conforms to American National Standards Institute, Photographic Films-Specifications for Safety Film, ANSI IT9.6-1996 and American National Standards Institute, Imaging Media (Film)-Silver Gelatin Type-Specifications for Stability, ANSI / NAPM IT9.1-1996. This is further to certify that the microphotography processes were accomplished by the undersigned on the date and at the reduction ratio indicated below. Date filming of this reel began 72 > 3-73 Reduction Ratio VATIOUS Date filming of this reel ended /2. #-/3