Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Railroad Records 1904 (part 1)
Railroad Records 1904 SUMIIONS FOR RELIEP.—Judge.—Printed and for Sale by Brady, The Printer, Statesville, N. C. 3-29-’011M {/ .County.--I9n the Superior Court. SUMMONS FOR RELIEF. Wou are Hereby Cor ae to Summon the Defendant above named, if Ma be figind wit your County, to be and appear before t udge of our Superior Court, at a Court to be held for the County i ; at Meh in .. ‘ on the /l Monday after the Monday of the same being the / $8 day of... ar and answer the complaint, a copy of which will be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the rt for Superior Cou id County, within the first three days of said Term, and let said Defendunt take notice if A: fail to answer to the said complaint within that time, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint. Hereof fail not, and of this summons make due return. Given under my hand and seal of said Court, this f STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, In the Superior Court. Garcia oaeacaae eminent et Le Cea pecs COUNTY. ( We acknowledge ourselves bound unto the Defendant in this action, in the sum of Dollars, to be void, however, if the Plaintiff cssenssnesaneenuneenaesesseesninescensseeeees SRG pay the Defendant... all such cost as the Defend- may recover of the Plaintiff........... in this action. Witness our hands and seals, this ...... being sworn says he is worth the sum of two hundred dollars over and above his debts, liabilities and property exempt from executions. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 190.¢ roa C4 g Term, 190 Plaintiff's Attorney. x hy us q — RG ©, oon oF Aon Sherit. Area County. SUMMONS FOR RELIEF. of the Superior Court of Returnable to County Received Mileage, Fee Ae im Sel Oe Ak > Lee i . GQauiG olla y no! rete shen 2 = ein eee. = itis yo > pe hes Cortes ct 7 oe Atm <eg tl Oo flan: feee ll OW Cle sce : F. c : ; a? SS és, ea Zz ke oly flu We ad ses aq CL, hE 7 tec C C. a PT por G cccinr cb Ce2aD Lei Ci. @& oF x > “j ; fl a ; " mr a dete t, Jt 4.42 t.44 Lt Sea. SPO? Ct t-sat<-f> Axo ces en Aa . J Le ? : . ‘ Cte ot, PE ee ee tt ae le $ Ct CBeebies as att C2. b4.4 tn “Z a. “ 2 | Ggn-ow O (ha AO OME tee a for , ey, one — Biss 4 Ve . came w . Sec e A Cece Snreg evrantitite Ln -. Comey A g 7 trv ee sh don, Me La «<< LL Pia eon, fr Ce Le. Le aa oto ang ed GAZ af oe at CG. {/ UZ Ct, Ce —— ofan 4 wakes i sik of < Hn be - 2 J 03 se fe ee 0 elif, ort Mca er Aee es. V2... 7 Cte oe Lik He hevecasns ar. lie A Vz Le lcs wlocsed Onfooug 7 > x he 7 — Oo Hong tO, sclectne, MB fadien ge Ct -t4-2-£o ér gre keceel Le Z 42 dia cs Ca J a “Soba ix, owner eee aon oeg foe or HA Od ttn Gen Frocace Aes Meri = Irn We: ; Ceo Ain 2E, coin cia a : 7 2 a Gff rant ots Bits fas | ie Khe ae eae coo Latete f- a it me Tce ERS ES pa Cael Aegece- Leal L A esha eras ee fo eae Zz. y for Fre of Chaasle of a0 . ae seney. 273 ‘ ae 9 ode 2 Late i Ce, He tbc ze < 2 fa g foto fee wie. > rs 4. ae Zz - n=-iffe Geet f- CE bak Apel oe at tecnhs ile a ae. wt, Cte A carat lita by he fon ff mae ten occ Ge, G f Jb é 7 ; ay =e ip KAM Go~eawt> ~- Led peg Coa oe $ o_o aeol> ; eg Coty COttey ael tne ee: > Oflu in igffee C ne ” ee Wace. f- ol } / , SM) ” . of he A ae Sace CttwttMe Lae) a” a ? 4 Y DK Le i pas z, or 7 Leal “a C.e oe Aa ftececk tof By te Cate Je Geel <page Ps uk Z ites > A aos Cae fo- naan |[feeee sg : - LA2 fe CA Ab¢t Ger B, Cth PY aaa A tchaee il a eagle? - e aks Cait aca of h Cet 0d od ha he LO ee Gf ba SY ag iin c eli a sce fpovotritoAs Ct< v4 a ois fo tA tty, L0PCtt Veal’ Lone <e t ja if Js* oxy oer lte® oe Cea’, 4 trey oe > cer es nel Cdhart.\ kA. A maf ana Z itn ee oe Ae, Fg oe Aa, ee a r <£ Mp ccetecey A feces ee elece for-eHans AACSOCG € Pon Thx Criiuete z tee Ccerllewsls ofeo 7 te UBsrele a So y - ole Co. OVAat OG oPt off aaa a ae: Nee an! le Ga oe of H~fF hs ect Oceecece Meng ai czced Clee: cetcolaa gh <A ih eee ee Messy Foceh. aac KAO Bak Rec ech Clecd Bircticcke ew sake adhe re dg ie) Ghee Lecet. hin he hd coe ehhy Key se fot ox, AES ay ST Bak they inci oe i p-go ae freee ger Me ya CL i” Cenacle of C ceecealo Pe batch, hau zs PP Cm? ac eet L0¢4e /2L oY, atlea— rt cocklecey fey of. Cee Creaw fare k~Siiah CMe. lLA-4 Sle oll Geor atte tee Dee cre. tuk é —— bey J > VAcc4 oc Sh ef a2eled Ct Aiea ihe A} A oe ——e it Se cr_r : fi kewee: Gr a ae Q nla ear gee Chae tg Poowseclcl en Afoey @«c /> a: A otc St t.s ee Oke ae teint D-we Ot prernZ | , 2 2 Go ie A, cords 7 a eS eS Se ae | “te 2 ee Lh wie soda ae ia hee fla $. fo eee Mae eee ait To oni Sm Dis laa a. ea? Slide eats -ei% Ce eit cz fovna fon oe Muwetlec . Cf hol “Gy ‘ eo ate am nd é. te ae iy a gl Aen preenity fiven bn’ Nedg ot A ins i eg eae Lee-sts co A-Lee Cetrcege <->, (Lex € Aaaetey oe a Jor cee2 soe feat sige AG aoe ee La Maas cex> Yeece ZH bet Ln cle Aegon fl Ha 4 — ie Loc’ ee pied Cee A pie ae ¥ 2c lof het bang ee hfe. Gir fed cp Perenies > hn A tbe oat inc ee a P.O 0 ee 4 ¢-214-< oot-# — peel \Z.. He e ok. le<ce a? ee hous Pa. Oy ofan Za. : A AH Pee 4 CARA Bag = ne f/e-+< Cx Clas diate: J Z ee: Cree Hela. Me ee eS 2 < 4 < ; i g oO 4 A . “y) wih ee i aC Llorr-<e 4 PP leer cece £45 o> - 4, — Bb wate Sccee? pm ct A G0 XA Banat. Y EA A eo a Lorthe, Pont < La Toce el Chine bbs ans ae “ly, C: . 5 as Areor heel Le. fet es £ . C2, mn ¢ AAA. AhoLc ” 9 ocx cel 9 7 oe Me Ces tf “ne cet lte cle ae ee bai yh rise flix finn Gf he O44 af C foc nob Foc wn Pt afar ami ow etece” a De hn hana se ee ir aa Sa2eL oc eek ae, ae Be Ris Ql fon of Ppceir Cele -*—P2eeore_ & “ale af act a: - Melon ask A ere a4 ve ve ya ated twee a> Bee” anal ete ge ee ete a eae 6 LP AO B Ce “ce pt we oe iguae ee oe ct ES p- a th ar clex rs a we aka fe AK. verte da peckobey 7 ne 2 sai thud &; HJ ag ee i Ct ge cal or Ct ee 2.@F- x Ke He, at FSO ee 7 een -“*e< atl +r Lan Ce Gast <g ee Occ c-< GL, Piss Ke Carn ge 5 aes tal yA / CZ cet & ce “hed COC t6haa. Ct end Aa orr Tome Year i A SS rs va Bee see ta A_« ee me 4 Aree Ae Fe Cc a idan 8 ae 4 9 pele. <5 ee al ff v a“ i # Oe CO cer che OPPO RS Ll Pron Ze J+ /7 a i a ee c Ce ck 2 fier t ae Aah ple Coca oa Prir~ a ee tn Se wt t/e Cs Kae fe AIL A Ain Cece Vi ( Dr: 4 hace el a no: ulin CO Le Za al a ap wee aS Gos ) y he COorcce# ” ; ° « , so ce ee ot. > : f? 7 he Sete fix PP 0¢_Jeer¢ t+ at ptr ce228 ie y Aees- anf Ae ce ae Apuiteh on te ‘ WZ, ae ee he Sard ad FE Gar cece T> (Jen ctponeenee fe pee, oie es Co aan ie al ue a a m a Bate of te eee ert Mw fase: a 7 iA as ae illins A Cecery ole le, Serorer oleae. ae pe Oe te fared (Zlaltel ere Ha JF oee<e A, ace Tce fee hss dg ewes Loans P27 cee Ca pao ac MI latin yk ofr = ees + Zn. Aug F #8 =a <2 a Zz € he i -e-- aS Lhe pee : a a 4 L oct -«tow & ee gia th oe ap i e RL f~ Cheesy “Je S Nerth Carolina oe In the Superier Ceurt Iredell Ceunty May Term 1903 Ge Fe Henkel, plaintiff vs Seuthern pailway Cempany, defendant, Tae defendant answers the Cemplaint and says; le Teat it is a cerperation duly and originally created, erganized ana existing under, and by virtue ef the laws ef the State ef Virgin ia, and was at the time alleged and was engaged, fer hire, at said time, in the transportation of passengers and freight frem ene place te anether, said pailway passing tkrougk tke Ceunties ef Tredell, ca- tawba and Bumcembe. 2. That the allegations contained in the sccend paragraph ef the Cemplaint are net true and are denied, 3. That the allegations centained in the third paragraph ef tke Cemplaint are net true and are denied. 4. Treat the allegations contained in the feurth paragraph of the Complaint are not true and are denied. Anéd fer a further answer and defense te plaintiff's cause ef action, defendant says; l. That at the time named, the plaintiff had ample time before the arrival ef the train at Hickery te have purchased a ticket, but neg- lected and failed te de se, and upen tke arrival ef the train, beare ed said train without first precuring his ticket as he skheuld and ceulé have done, and when the Ceonducter ef said train called fer txe tickets as was his duty te de, the plaintiff failed te preduce his ticket, and waen infermed by said Conducter on said train, that he _woula have to pay twenty five cents extra, making tetal ef ene dollar : , ees ee . h . ee = . ? “* ih ¢ a - ‘ 4 : = + 7s 5. Ga fieroon conte, the plaintiff declined and refused te pay hp some 4 re 4 Ne) ogy ani as vi. tars g hate : ad . ; » $2 ? e eae - pe i: BS att - o - s e phat 08 ae ef a Bas a re "0. though he was informed by said Conducter at the time that the extra twenty five cents would be repaid te kim upon his arrival at States- ville. That the plaintiff still refused and declined te pay said fare er any part thereef and was then infermed by said Conducter that he would have to get eff saié train. That said train was stopped at the instance of the said Cen- ductor within a mile ef the’ said station ef Hiekery and the plaintiff . walked eff said train. And having fully answered, defendant prays that it r:cever its cests in its behalf expended and go hence without day. > ——— - Of Ceunsel fer defendant, D.M.Coiner being duly swern says, that he is the Statien agent ef the defendant at Statesville, N.C. that tke feregeing Answer is true as ef his own knewledge except as te matters and things therein sta~- ted upen infermatien and beleif and as te these matters and things, he ebclives it te be true. Sworn te and subscribed befere me this the 25~ day ef May 1903. eee Civil Subpoena.—pPrinted and for sale at the LanpMark Jos Orri°s, Statesville, N. C. STALE OF: rene CAROLINA, 49 THE SHERIFF OF... Ce [ae fz House in 4. , Zz ee) on the ff Monday after the oe Monday in Aig ahs next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of 4G ia ay in a certain controversy before said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein Plaintiff ......., and Lt (42 C2 Defendent . And this es shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness Macheces , Clerk of our said Court, at office in Monday after the 4 Bit he ¥ a. Mate. Clerk Superior Court for Lu_ateeg. County. Monday in Plaintiff. Defendant... Term, 189 SUBPENA~-Civil, Against Civil Subpoena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMark Jos Orri-8, Statesville, N. C. ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHERIFF OF eu Loe ee ‘ Won are Hereby Commanded to Summon personally to appgar Plaintiff . Defendent . And this you shall in no wise offiit, under the penalty prescribed by law. —— Witness , Clerk of our said Court, at office in Monday after the Monday in : the 7 " a ig / Clerk Superior Co or County. OF hace Plainii Against Defendant j / Civil Subpoena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMarxk Jon Orrt'E, Statesville, N. C. TATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHERIFF OF... PPE OL. a a G: re Dereby a, (oo to Summon...... a ie fe one * Bf the Aa; a Pinal a next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of AO Lot in a certai ntrov ye before fs tf. Court depending, and then and there to be fyied, wherein > is ee: ee mn Defendent . And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness , Clerk of our said Court, at office in , the Monday after the Monday in f 7 oe for Fee Arne. County. RE IEE Against Swe Defendant SUBPENA--Givil mae a. Cae. CO aw@. (Pr Plaintiff. ——— A eg Received, Served by ; Civil Subpcena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMark Jon Orri"e, Statesville, N. C. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHERIFF OF... ..... ..(OUNTY---GREETING: Dou are Hereby Commanded to Summon personally to appear before the Judge of Superior Court, at the next Court to be beld for our said county at the Court Housein..@lTaenth ¢ Tha~ ele, Jena tf on the.... ¥. Monday’ af the Monday in — next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of . LY in a certain controversy before said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein Le Plaintiff .........., and —ee— oS Defendent . And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness ete leie:s , Clerk of our said Court, at office in wid tient Monday S the... a Monday in Loft ify QA net Clerk Superior Court for \Ax ALLA County. bs Dake Plaintiff Against Defendant SUBRENA~-~Givil, For aa oD A at2st. Ter nf hao J ae = —— ee me oved “tt te ~crved by reading ths , ba eC be North Carolina, Iredell County, G. F, Henkle, vs Southern Railway Co. Did the In the Superior Court. Issues. BILL OF COSTS.—CIVIL.—Printed and for sale at The Landmark Job Offive, Statesville, N.C. 2-1-'96-1m. nn Against Judgment Against Bil LAX names therein......452.0°7,..57. Every copy of same Order for enlarging time of pleading Interlocutory Orders Injunction Order, including Bond and Justification Order of Arrest Subpena, each name Notifying Solicitor of Removal of Guardian —_ CPTI I la celcdincin sis Gsnsss hepa bani Widen skddsna cltun dsl Ibekenilte < cokdomeion Caveat to a Will, entering and docketing Issuing Commission Affidavit, including Jurat and Certificate .. SM bidcid os cdg dscntacRieis: dakpiahtbdoabscnesdvndeabendidhe eseatieenbeibes ‘iislees, sioteanplanbe : ECAC, ROOD UA BORDON Gy cipscccest ces nicnisnsepiedceqpnnibeans saubs- eopets fdaoh eh I calif hb Rtas, Notice, for each name over one in same paper...............cceeseceee . Impaneling Jury.......... Justification of Sureties, except as otherwise provided............. Judgment final in term time..... Judgment final before Clerk Judgment in favor of Widow's Year's Support....... | Docketing same..... | Docketing ex parte Proceedings i Judgment Summons Indexing Judgment | Filing Papers... Postage, actual || Transcript of Judgment ; E; nD Sheriff's Return Appeal to Supreme Coart, including Certificate and Seal Transcript to Supreme Court, copy sheets, each || County Tax, when Jury impaneled Referee's Allowance Sheriff i} Constable Magistrate Plaintiff's Witnes C || Defendant's Witnesses Original Summons. or nal p 8. including all Ae jsusoay ap =~ : 5 - ’ / / , - (“9p0> 2g} 4 pexy sy) é [201 -S4S0) fO tT |" ==———— : ‘194900 TAID ae, Railroad Records 1904 SUMIIONS FOR RELIEF.—Judge.—Printed and for Sale by Brady, The Printer, Statesville, N. C. te cleae. County.--9n the Superior Court. SUMMONS FOR RELIEF. \ the Defendant above named, if be fiund within your County, to be and appear before the Judge of our Superior Court, at a Court to be held for the County @ Macs ase at the Court House in Making oat hed, on the... d . Monday after the y Monday of FA whith the same being the ..Z t- day ttt ts -. @nd answer the complaint, a copy of which will be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court for said County, within the first three days of said Term, and let said Defendant take notice if _... ch. fail to answer to the said complaint within that time, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint. Hereof fail not, and of this summons make due return. Given under my hand and seal of said Court, this i of Superior Court STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, In the Superior Court. COUNTY. We acknowledge ourselves bound unto ............. Nha CAM ctectec vee... $LELEI KAMER... NCPR SS the Defendant in this action, in the sum of .......... Fe beak) eee esas Dollars, to be void, however, if the Plaintiff FH. GI Aluak- ‘msi esa ee ae shall pay the Defendant all such cost as the Defend- ant........ may recover of the Plaintiff.......... in this action. Witness our hands and seals, this ag Re Kr Cetin - Yon. Lead here being sw orn, says he is worth the sum of two hundred dollars over and above his debts, liabilities and property exempt from executions. Sworn to and subscribed before me this & day of Term, 190.4 Plaintiff's Attorney. of the Superior Court of re ALLE. SFOR RELIEF. Returnable to V4 SUMMON Received y North Carolina, Superior Court, Iredell County. May Term, 1903. I. N. Paine, vs COMP LA TPN. To Southern railway Company. The plaintiff complains and alleges: First. That the phainti¢t is a corporation auly or ganized by law and engage % tn toa business of a common carrier of freight and passengers for ake ower its line of railway from Salisbury, "¥/C., through Ire- dell land other Counties to the city of Asheville in said State, and as such corporation owns and maintains a railway with tracks, bridges, &e., over which it rune/litls freight ena padsenger trains between said places; that its said thack and voed skterds through the county of Iredell and crosses by a viaduct and bridge a stream known as rhird Creek, about two miles West of the city of Statesville in said County of Tredell; Second. That the plaintiff is now and has been for-a number of years the owner and occupant of a tract of land situated in the county of Ire- dell on the waters of Third Creek of about 240 acres; that the Northem boundary of the plaintiff's land runs about } of a mile below the de- fendant's viaduct and bridg@ over Third Creek, mentioned in paragraph Pirst of this complaint; and extends on,gboth sides of said creck for about 4 a mile; thet the plaintiff owns about 50 acres of bottom land 6n said creek the greater portion of which he has cultivated for sev- eral years in corn and other crops and which @P4or to the wrongs and injuries hereinafter mentioned wae very valuable and produetive; that heretofore the plaintiff, by proper ditching, has been able to drain eaid lands and keep the sane fit for successful cultivation. -j- Third. That the defendant's viaduct aforesaid across the said creek had been built for many years, and is a substantial structure of stone and brick, ample and sufficient for the uses and purposes for which , 1t was erected; that the same is about 60 feet high and 3500 feet long, and at the ends thereof there are solid embankments or fills of earth upon which the track of defendant is built and its trains approach said bridge; that upon the east side of said bridge the fill extends back from the endsof \the pridke a distance of sevéral hundred yards with a hetghnth near the bridge of about 50 feet) and «base of near 150 feat; \o7 the west side of said bridge there is ea sdimilfar £111 of about 100 fest in length and 50 feet in height and about 150° feet wide, leaving a distance between the two fills across the stream of about 200 or more feet, which Vai dpbcined by thd |\Wi@duct aforesaid; upon whidh rests the superstructure/od Abpea LL Shade - that the channel of the said Third Creek flows under the middle arch of the said viaduct, which spanieé near 50 feet in length; that prior to the wrongs and injuries~hereinafter alleged the chanel of said creek was no way. ob- structed by defendant's! viaduct, bridge and fills) but at all times, both when the waters of-said ereek were high and low, flowed without hinderance through its channel under the arch of defendant's bridge and viaduct, and in times of freshets when the said stream was swollen by rains there was no obstructions at said place to the flow of said waters, and none of the said embankments were washed into the bed of said stream or upon the plaintiff's lands below; Fourth. That during the Pall and Winter of 1902 & 1903, the defendant in reconstructing its road bed some four or five miles west of said bridge, had a large quantity ofearth, stone, &c., to remove and dis- pose of, and in order to do so hauled upon its construction trains large quantities of said earth to the fills approaching the bridge = 2— aforesaid, and unlawfully, wrongfully, carelessly, negligently and without due care emptied it on the said fills and extended them to the banks of the said stream on both sides thereof to a height of about 50 feet with a base of near 150 feet, and in length about 75 feet, which required thousands of tons of earth to occupy the space within the aforesaid dimensions; and in addition thereto unlawfully, wrong- fully, negYigently andcarelessly emptied thousands of tons of earth and rock in the bed of the!@aid stream at the bridge aforesaid, as plaintiff ts\\informed-and believes,\\thereby/ capging) the bed of said atream\td be \eY2bes-IS inches or more in height for 4) @ietance of a half-mite Or more below said bridge; that the placing of..sald earth upon the fill and in the said creek, as plaintiff is informed and be- lieves, was entirely umpe¢ecessary to the safety of defendant's viaduct, ine vridge and track, and ye | Pare lesaly end negligently pleced there by defendant in order to easily dispose of the sane, as plaintiff is in- formed and believes, Fifth. That the £11l¢-aforesaid added to _by the Gefendant\ by the dump- ing of earttand vock thereihf as aforesaid, were carelessly, negligent ly and without proper care, permitted to stand and remain unprotected, by wall or otherwise during the fall and winter aforesaid, and still remains so unprotected, so that by the action of the waters of said creek, and especially at times when the same are swollen by heavy rains, the said earth, &c., is washed into the channel of said stream, and upon the lands adjacent thereto, and especially upon the lands of the plaintiff mentioned and described in the first paragraph of this Complaint; that during the past winter, by reason of the wrongs and injuries aforesaid, the channel of said creek through the plaintiff's lands has been filled to the height of a foot or more, many tons of earth washed from the aforesaid fills have been deposited upon the -3- bottom lands of the plaintiff, his ditches filled with mud and clay, the land sobbed, many washouts have been made by the waters through tie Plaintiff's bottom lands, many acres of meadow land covered with earth and mud, destroying its value, and the greater portion of the 50 acres of bottom land belonging to the plaintiff have thereby been seriously and permanently injured and thereby rendered untillable; that owing to the filling up of the.channel of said stream as 2foresaid said land cannot be drathed; alloto the plaintiff's past, présent and permanent injury engdemage, to-wit; in the sum of two-Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollanas \\ therefore, the plaintiff demands judgement against the defendant, Southern Railway Company, in the sum of $2,000.00 damges and the costs fii ite \i of this action, to be taper by the Clerk\ Of\this Court. | pps LJ \\> J \y Armf4eld & Turner, Attorneys for Plaintiff. I,(N. Paine, Being duly sworn, depoges and.says, that the allega- tions of tiie foregoing-complaint are true of his \own, knowledge, except those matters and thingstherein stated upon information and belief, and these he believes to be true. J e aia ee 2 Lik ath biiolhe ai Sworn and subscribed before me this the -4¢+- day of vay,,1903. OE Mle. LTE isi ag: — Civil Subpoena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMark Jos Orri-£, Statesville, N.C. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHERIFF OF... ene _. (County---GREETING: House in ata, ALG on the _ Lirchepy ana the Me next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of personally to eee Judge of Superior Court, at the next Court to be bela for our said county at the Court in a certain controversy before said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein ee Caine i- Defendent _ And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness , Clerk of our said Court, at office in Monday after {be Monday in eo ger Alladin Clerk Superior Court for fet eg County. No. oH Paces. Plaintiff Against 2.4, 2 Defendant SUBPEEN A~~~Givil. oy Pr. en 1Le + PA, L ju cree xP Fee clase Civil Subpeena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMark Jon Orri £, Statesville, N. C. ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHARIFF. OF scone SOUNTY--“GREETING: Comma personally to appear hcjonpthp dials of Superior Court, at the next Court to be beld for our said conn at the Court Housein Ylat, sicg on the fo AC repay the fits “a ? QS, in next, then and thereto testify and the truth to say in bebalf of in a certaipyontrover, Selene sal Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein Se Defendent _ And this you all in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. os ? Witness , + poo , Clerk of our said Court, at office in Monday after the Monday in uperior Court for County. No. AD fax Against So 1G. Ge Defendant SUBPENA~—~Givil. ods. Jona rE arr Colored Plaintiff Civil Subpoena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMarx Jos Orri‘e, Statesville, N.C. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, --County-Greenino: personally to x before the Judge of iia Court, at the next Court to be held for our said county at the Court House in... Netirle on the Phecwnateag. thin, bathe Cha 7K. eblagedieg 1 ae next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf é | Rap in a certain controversy before said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein =“, A e 2 3 Plaintiff ., and GOAL AA Me es... ee Os f } Defendent..{.. And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. \ Wiitnedss at Liv: , Clerk of our said Court, at office in Hate athe ten , the £4 Cu ..... Mauday after the Monday in 4 189 Clerk Su or Court for Lac MOLLE County. Plaintiff ; p Against s 7 / &--4-+ MS j A Ad +0 << Defendant QUBPENA—Civil Mr, dir apt > rs : ’ yA MN lhe pena > ; “ rive ws aie rve Legs Bbifot. "24 Civil Subpcena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMark Jon Orris, Statesville, N. C. \ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, County---GREETING: Vg Auk 49. A PEM. personally to appear before the Judge of Superior Court, at the next Court to be beld jor our said county at the Court House in Stakes Aetee. ; on the J Monday be tw J. onday in LK next, then and there to testify and the trutb to say in bebalf of in a certain contgoversy before said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein Plaintiff... and tie ee . es. Aa Defendent 3. And this y jl in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. ‘a Witness | * , Clerk of our said Court, at office in onday after the ’..... Monday in Fay &, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHERIFF OF ; CG: Won are Hereby Commanded to Summon... personally to appear before the Judge of Superior Court, at the next Court to be held for our said county at the Court Housein on the a Monday fhe the Le Monday in AA ate te next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of Afnnrhanrd in a certain controversy before said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein uf: Ly Dawn. ’ . ary iif & Plaintiff , and we. Ze. Ho : Defendent . And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness dp Ge Sp tatecero , Clerk of our said Court, at office in tMalietiss , the 3. Monday the. 7 eS: Monday in Lite“. We Clerk Superior Court for Ax Ltt. County. Plaintiff Against Oe ee Defendant SUBPENA~~~Givil. AY VW trdo Civil Subpoena.— Printed and for sale at the Laxomarx Jon Orrice, Statesville, N.C. TATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHERIFF OF ....04 2 Lie. _vossunueaOUNTY---GREETING: Wou are Hereby Commanded to Summon personally to appear lpfoye the Ji de of Superior Court, at the next Court to be beld for our said county at the Court House in.... 2 Piao ; 02. on the. SE4 _ Re Arppty were. ee mee va next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of re said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein 7 ete to a e Be tee Defendent........ And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness , Clerk of our said Court, at office in Jay 30 Monday after the Monday in Ws Court for County. No. IY PP sv Plaintiff Against Lec Defendant SUBPEN A~~~Civil, at eles Tee 89 (140% : / 947.4 aA 94 > AO Re ttrMeit J / ol« ~t-4 7 We (i Lo D> IY. x Garr Ly Vv. L+ »? — i p@ ANY fi “> Jf” Civil Subpoena.—printéd and for sale at the LanpMarx Jon Orrte, Statesville, N. C. TATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, eee gin personally to mn the €0 ag orn at the next Court to be beld for our said county at the Court House in on the ee Lx, ~ on in next, then and there Sica the truth to say in a of A 2 ing, and then and there to be pred eembarele Plaintiff , and <a \ : Defendent . And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness , Clerk of our said Court, at office in he = a. , the Monday after the Monday in Clerl Superior Court for Kee BECK, County. 0. I fo Cee _a, Plaintiff Aga i oS SUBPENA—Civil North Carolina | In the Superior @ourt Iredell Cowmty May term 1903. Zt. N. Paine, plaintiff. vs ‘Angwer. Southern Railway Company, defendant mhne defendant answers the complaint and says; os That it is -m corporation duly and originally created, organis ed and existing under, and by virtue of the laws of the State of Vir ginia, and operated its trains over the various lines of its roads, including that from Salisbury, over rhird Creck in the county of Iredell. 2- what the allegations of the second paragraph of the Complaint are not true and are denied. Se That the allegations of the third paragraph of the Complaint ar are not true and are denied, 4. That the allegations contained in the fourth paragraph of the Complaint are not true and are denied, 5. qghat the allegations of the fifth paragraj, of the ggmplaint a are not true and are denied. And for a further answer and defense to plaintiffts cause of ac- tion the defendant , says; I. That in the operation of its railway, it is required to keep ite tracks, bridges, viaducts and other portions of its road bed in g00d and proper con dition, fit and suitable for the safe transports tion of ite cars, both passenger and freight. That at the said bride oviaduct, thesame having been constructed many years ago; that it ° becomes necessary to rebank or strengthen said embankments by the addition of earth and stones and thereby render more safe and secure the butments of said bridge or viaduct; that said earth and stones Were deposited there for said purpose and were and are necessary; t that it is not true that the same were deposited negligently orscare heesly, but the same was done for the purpose aforsaid and with care and due regard to the proper preservation of the road bed and the b pridge or viaduct. Having fully answered defendant asks that it recover its costs in its behalf expended and go hence without day. Counsel for defendant Le Ce Caldwell e Se ed 2 a + - 5 - 2 ame ae BB. ns a ES ee - - | ; a 2S, ~ gel, [illiwwes | SK, XK — poms con eo 9 a ie dps A 5 Fp AE Heh BATT CES. 78 Hag FP I. N. Paine, ve Instructions asked by the plaintiff, Southern Railway Company. -l- If the jury believe the evidence in this ease as to the dump- ing of dirt, etc., by defendant upon its fill at the bridge om qphird Creek, and shall find from the evidence that portions of said dirt, etc., have been waghed into the said creek and upon the lands of the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in thie action for such actual Gamages as he bas sustained thereby. Staten va R. Re, Lil Ne Cop 278, and pther cages. -2~ [ff the jury shall find from the greater weight of the evi- Gence that the defendant, the Southern Railway Company, placed or permitted to be placed 'upom the banks of yhird creek large quanti- ties of mud, sand, clay, rock and gravel upon the right of way of gaid defendant, at cnamuer its viaduct or bridge across said creek, without providing adequate means for preventing the said md, ete, from being washed into the ereek and upon plaintife’s land, if you find it was so washed upon his land, this failure to provide means to prevent its being. washed upom plaintiff's land was negligence, ana if the plaintiff has been injured thereby he would be entitled to recover im this action, and the jury will answer the first issue “Yee”. - If the jury should answer the first iesue, you will pro- eeed to assess the plaintiff’s damages. This will be such sum as the jury shall find from the evidenee to be a fair compensation for the injury sustained, and in fixing this amount they should consider the plaintiff's past, present and future, pF permanent damages to his land, which have accrued, or are Likely to acerue from the ast complained of. This you are instructed fo-he) is the difference in the value of the astpn bhatt nd land = the gut or fill-properly con- etructed and protected, : Quid what itt Wake Laer. Gi webs. has it esx poferty a8 ali (fore Cela a r (ete ye Ae 947 Special Instruction asked by the Defendant. First. The defendant in this case has the right to 100 feet from the - at center of the track on each side of its road, and «pon its rignt of way it has the right to perform such acts necessary for the success- fudleveratson and preservation of its road bed, bridges, viaducts, together with all houses and ajjycondages of a railroad at the place designated, to wit, Boston's Bridge it had the authority under its Charter to dump the dirt taken from the cut, at the ends of the bridge in such quantities as would strenghten and support the butt- ments, bridges and tracks and it was only required 60 use such care and diligence in placing dirt there as not to demage the adjacent land owners, and if the Jury should find that the dirt was placed over the land down to the edge of the creek, and part of it in the creck and was washed away by the current, still if this dirt has not raised the creek or filled the ditches of the plaintiff so as to cause his lands to over flow, the defendant in this case would not be guilty of negligence and injury to the plaintiff, and the Jury sho'tld answer the first issue No. Seconiie If the Jury s ould find that the lands on votu sides of tho creek are accustomed to be over flowed, and shovld further find that the plaintiff allowed the ditches to go fill \p, 4&8 not to carry the water from the branches, and the water from the branches ran out into the bottoms,spread out ,and onner, Be be wet, and the Jury should further find that the banks of the creek are 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 feet high, and that by proper cleansing of the ditches and keeping the game in order there was sufficient fall to have carried off the water and the plaintiff failed and neglected to so protect his lands, and he was damaged thereby the defendant would not be liable, and the Jury should answer the first issue No. Third, The burden of proof in this case is upon the plaintiff in both issues, and he must satisfy the Jury by the greater weight of the evidence not only that the company,placed dirt in the creek and o s0 near thereto that it has washed down and is likely to continue to be washed down, but he must go further and satisfy the Jury by the greater weight of the evidence that this dirt has caused his creek channel to full up to such an extent that it causes his bottoms to . tee and if he has failed to satisfy the Jury,that he is not entitled to recover, and the Jury should overflow, his ditches to ariswer the first isstie No. Fourth. It is the duty 6f the Jury to take into consideration the interest of the plaintiff in this action and all the witnesses, if interested they are, to ascertain their motives touching. this par- ticular transaction, and their opportunity, their experience and all things connected with their testimony, and if upon all the evidence the plaintiff has failed to setisfy the Jury by a greater weight of evidence, that he has heen damaged by the acts and conduct of the defencant then the Jury should answer the first issue No. Fifth. The Court charges you that the interest of the plaintiff in this land is aconditional fee, likely to be terminated at any time, #& and therofore the plaintiff is. not entitled to recover permnant - al damaces, if anv’ at.all,. 1 passing upon his damages, if any there = 5 . 5 4 t 4 , . are, the Jury should taxe into consiaeration all the evidence, the number of crops, good and bad, thay were made upon this land prior to the alleged Agr enge and since and such other facts and consider- ation as appear from the evidence to pass upon and determine the true condition of affairs in volved in this case. Sixth. The defendant hareby request Kis Honor that inspection of the premises be made by the yury in order that a just and proper ver- fox Mik dict may be arrived at. ra " . , pets | Armfield & Turner Attorurys Stateshille, N.C. 4s . > - “4 ROX oe i: Vo 6 . 2/0 X°YS?O pet? XY £0 tp LO [§ PE 1270 XBL SSF ma ft rN i N NY ‘ZU age 272% T/0XTGLE yao! "2 2F KY 2X 22F Fgyi “2.22 52t Tey! ‘4 3 1,3 ¥! Se S ‘740 XY ‘40 1,/0 YL? */ (0 bh $O oS 2 F 6 Yé BILL OF COSTS.—CIVIL.—Printed and for sale at The Landmark Job Office, Statesville, N.C. 2-1-96-1m. Original Sumatons. of o; 1 reper, joctuding all names therein... PE Ae - $1 Every copy of same............. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT. Bond, including oo) Sasa raise ¢ PP aaisock haa. Docket County.|\ Order for enlarging time of pleading . ; Interlocutory Orders ; H Pdbeiairataeh: CER Wiss ccissachoviced yhosnboneeneresbbinngnbcapestnntoieolbintotons AY. Ceci ¢ Injunction Order, including Bond and Justification Order of Arrest Gsubpena, ODOR BOBO, .00csccse-novce sorenerossscoporsssees capes . Notifying Solicitor of Removal of Guardian CORSICA RED, yicvrseecsesnees sinssisnpnen seecepnstessvsenenesenennamensnes seenersenes Against Caveat to a Will, entering and docketing... 4 GF; Issuing Commission . .. siisjansaliaientiagins oi ia ; Affidavit, including Jurat and Certificate Seal eee Motion, Entry and Record of CMY. || Notice Notice, for each name over one in same paper Impaneling Jury Justification of Sureties, except as otherwise provided | Judgment final in term time Judgment Against | Judgment final before Clerk Judgment in favor of Widow's Year's Support... A fi oe fea a * Dek ocketing same Docketing ¢x parte Proceedings This 2 st Go ¥ & Zict fas “ Judgment i Summons 1 Indexing Judgment Filing Papers Postage, actoal Travecript of Judgment Reet & Sheriff's Return Appeal to Supreme Court, including Certificate and Seal Tranecript to Supreme Court copy sheets, each County Tax, whea Jury Ze Referee's Allo Z Serif eset ttt OF Bex Ru % ees ¥ Su Constable Magistrate Plaintiff's Witnesses jsusolp ("ap0D 9q1 & paxy sy) [tatQ—SjsoD fo tq “L9NDOU MAID Railroad Records 1904 SUMMONS FOR RELIEF. -County—GREETING: the Defendant above named, ON Court, at held for the County of on the Boke Monday after the JAE eet es day A ae and answer the complaint, a copy of wKich will be daneaites in the office of the ae Superior Court for at County, within the first three days of said Term, and let said Defendant......take notice yf Jail to answer to the said complaint within that time, the plaintiff......will apply to the Court Sor the relief demanded in the m op hee —m 2 Hereof fail not, and of this summons make due return. Clark Superior Court Given under my hand and seal of said Court, this . .. County. Dollars, to be void, however, if the shall pay the Defendant ... all such cost as the Defend- saves in this action. Se a ORY eon Bow Le. FY WPVM Seal.) Davies, sciarmeeae® eal.) AL, / 7 Ax Sh iz : _(Seal.) ANE qd ttLLE° FELL being sworn says he is worth the sum of two hundred dollars over and above his debts, liabilities and property exempt from executions. Witness our hands and seals, this. Es day of- Sworn to and subscribed before me this day o 190 2 Say " -~ > S D _ A Poses i \ , 7 ovr D sz ; % 7% N Ne: ‘> ‘) 3 Ph ae e 4 : 8 ea S Fae vid 7 : & , \ = we @\a i E ce ss i ‘ BSE ‘ > \J Siege} : & SD 8 a2 ace (3 Ss; 3 is \ Qo se 6) +5 is ~\ “4 OO: a 2 oa ; » b> 6+ > ke eal wie ir SD her FRY x a ® ec @ 3 GC Doh! Fz SC - a3 218 o ps Oo ee Mia w s oo ++ ag - Owo cm+ 3 3 aT Sie : 3 “4 2; ; e << =i 8 e3Zus\2 eo Estill @ Pease c | . - eee &2 | Sis 5 : | re ~ across Catawha River, North Carolina, In the Superior Court. Iredell County. { November Term 1902. E. M. Sigmon, vs : COMPLAINT. Southern Railway Company. f{ The plaintiff complains and alleges: First: - That the defendant is a railway corporation duly chartesee and organized and operating a railroad commonly called the Western North Carolina Railroad between Salisbury, Statesville, Catawba and Asheville, controlling, using, maintaining and equipping the said railroad for railroad purposes, including the roadbed, right of way, tracks, bridges, culver$s, etc., and operating its trains for the carriage of passengers and freight for hire over the said railroad in North Carolina. gYecond:- That at the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant doing work as a carpenter under a boss by the name of Hewitt, and was working along with other employees of the defendant in repairing and working upon the bridge of the defendant across the Catawba River near Catawba Station, and his wages at that time were $1.25 per day. Third: - That on the 25th of September, 1901, whilst in the employment and workirt “pon the bridge aforesaid of the defendant and in his regular line of work he was injured a the negligence of the defendant and its employees as follows: The plaintiff was assigned to work near the bridge at the foot of a steep incline by his immediate foreman Burroughs whose order it Was his duty to obey, and the defendant and its employees had placed above to be used in connection with repairs on defendants railroad bridge A him some 12 or 15 feet certain heavy ae. were out of his sight. | us position and negligently so that he could not see them and in dange ? placed upon the said steep incline in such a way as that such timbers were likely at any time to slide and fall upon the plaintiff whilst he Was engaged in the work at the foot of the steep where he was then assigned; thet the defendant and its employees had given the plaintiff no warning at all of these timbers thus placed in dangerous positions above him and plaintiff did not know of their being there so that he might be warned of the danger, and suddenly and without warning a portion of the said timbers, to-wit: a large heavy plank of the length of about 22 ft. 12 inches wide and 2 inches thick slid suddenly down endways upon the plaintiff and curshed his left foot and ankle; that the defendant and its agents failed and neglected to put any supports or make any provision against the dangers of the timbers sliding down upon the plaintiff. That the plaintiff's foot and ankle was so severely curshed and injured that he was confined to bed on account thereof for about seven weeks and he was unable to walk for about nine months and he is now unable to use his said foot and walk upon it without having a crutch or staff to bear his weight upon; that he has been caued thereby to endure great pain of body and mind in consequence of his injuries, and he is advised and believ:s that his foot and ankle are permanently injured; his injuries have been so severe that they have disabled him from performing the labors he has hitherto been able to perform wherewith to obtain a livlihood; that at the time of the injury he was of the age of 49 years and he was then obtaining $1.25 per day for his work; that his occupation has been that of a farmer and carpenter and up to the time of his injury he had been in the enjoyment of good health and able to work and support his wife and children; that by reason of the negligence of the defendant and its agents aforesaid causing him the physical and mental suffering as aforesaid, he has been greatly endamageg and for the purposes of this action he alleges that he has been endamaged in the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2000.00). Wherefore he demands judgment of the defendant in the sum of ction. 7 orneys for the Plaintiff. Ek. M. Sigmon being duly sworn says that the foregoing complaint is true of his own knowledge except as to those things therein stated upon information and belief and as to those he believes it to be true. Sworn tp and subscribed before me this the ---+----- day of ——_— - - one © 1902. North carolina In the Superior Court Iredell County November Term 1992 EH. M. Sigmon. ANSWER. vs Southern ,ailway Company. The defendant answers the complaint and says; First:- That it is a corporation duly and originally created, or- ganized and existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of Virginia and operates its trains for the carriage of freight and passengers over its several lines of railway, Second:/ That the allegations contained in the second paragraph of the complaint are not true and are denied, except that plain- tiff was in the employment of the defendant, Third-. That the allegations contained in the third paragraph of the complaint are not true and are denied. And for a further defense and answer to plaintiff's cause of action the defendant says; First:. That plaintiff contributed to his own injury in his careless and negligent handling of the plank, permit ting the same to slide down upon him and his feilure to avoid the injury as he could have done by moving out of the way; that plaintiff further contributed to his injury by attempting to remove a plank wikhout first looking to see whether any other planks were liable to move down upon him. Second:. That plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in not getting out of the way of the moving plank; in not looking to see whether other plank would slide upon him, and in attempting to remove one plank with other plank resting upon it and liable to slide down upon him, Third:. That plaintiff assumed the risk when he accepted the ser vice of removal of the plank; that he could see and know that the / plank were liable to slide down upon him, and the risk was inci dent to the service to be performed, Having fully answered , defendants prays that it recover its costs in its behalf expehded and go hence without day. Counsel for defendant, D.M.Coiner being duly sworn say-; That he is the local and resident agent of the defendant, Southern pailway Company, at Statesville N.C. and that the foregoing answer is true as Qf his own knowl- edge, except as to those matters and things therein stated upon information and beleif and as to those matters and things, he be- leives it to be true. a Sworn to and subscribed before me this the day of November 1902. , | } ai resting at flat place where I was working- top on bank. Did not see any plan's on bank at time I -ot hurt- could not see top of hank, could see those standinr or leaning on the bank as I was workings on them. At time I was working and got hurt no one was putting down plank. The plank that hurt me came from the hill above some- where= did not see it before it started, not until just about at me coming towards me - I went to jump away, seeing it coming, mr foot caught I fehl backward between the squar e timber and the plank struck me, The plank were put down in the usual way. I had put them down the hill the same was- but none on this morning. The usual was to put them down; they went up on top of the hill and got them off the pile and let them down the hill. Sometimes they would lodge and when hands had got all they wanted they would so down where lodg- ed and pu® them down the hill. They would lodge where bank was not SO stecp, and then be started down, they caught on one another. I never left any lodged when I was putting them down. The plank crushed my foot ad ankle up , I suffered great ly- Toot aid not hlieed . It was end of plan= that struck me , confined to bed 5 or 6 weeks- conld not sleep- walked on crutches 9 months- not able to work for 17 months- can't do much yet- My wages were $1.25 i per day. rr ‘ ross “xamined Setween me and the top of the bank there was a flat place; t the lumber was slided down in the usual way, so we could work on it, I saw, the lumber on the »bank- No one was wp there at the time. I would get the end up so that I could adge the corner, it was lying down on “he bank one after the other- I would adge one corner and and wheel it around so that it could be carried into the river, and while IT was so engaged, one of the plank slipped- I saw it coming, and tied *o get out of the way, my foot slipped from under me as I jumped up on the timber and I fell, throwed my foot back to keep from falling, and my foot went back in the way of the plank that was Slidin; down the bank. Geo. Pope, Witness for Plaintiff Testified. + Was working close to Sigman the day he was injured= ‘Sur- roughs was foreman. I was out in river 25 yards from him carrying plank where Sigman was working. Could see the embanknent from where ty pa | I was- nothing between me and it- could see top of bank- Burroughs W was out in the river- Me and Hewitt had heen on top of the hank slid- ing plank down- We put the plank that hurt Sigmen down that morning then we were ordered to come down and carry them helow the coffer dam We slided down the plank, Sigman was working on - We went to pile of plenk on top of bank - get & plank and start them down the hill, some would’ go all the way some wonld lodge against the other plank some- times they would lodge on dirt- and not g0 down, unless we would go down and put them on to hottom- We did not put them all to the bottom that morning- we were ordered away. The plank were put down in the usual way- that is, carry a lot of plank and put ‘hem down %t and then fo down, if any were lodged, and st ighten them out to keep them from running into the river- Sometimes they would slide down the hill without any help and shoot om in the river- We tried to get them down to the square timber- where “Sigman was to adge them. Cross Fxamined. I guess Sirman covld sc%e wp as far as the hill went- Did not 4 leave any one on the hill after we left- when Fewitt and I came down Sigman went to sharpening some plank and we carried them off- Sigman came down the river to his place of work ahout the time we came off the hill- Had not seen him since »breakfast- He was using the adge. Robt. Hewitt- Testifies as follows: Was at tiver that day at work- out in river when Sigman was hurt, Pope and I were carrying plank- Burrouchs told us to do 80, Pope and I put the plank down the hill that morning, left no one on top of hill. We caught hola of the ends and pulled thm off the pile on the top of the bank and slided them down in the usual way. Some of them would go down 25 or 30 feet to the hotton of the hill where they wanted them and stop against the timber- where “Sigman afterwards worked. Some would logge on bank against the ends of other did do this morning. Burroughs ordered us to carry the plank over to the coffer dam, so they could work then. The usual way of putting them down as. we did that morning, that is, slide them end-wise. We woudl go down ay and unlodge those lodged- never left any lodged that way. Sigman was not at his place when the plank were put rm" wh wherl we slided the plank down to the level place, Sigm»dn or oever workdd ther\ would turn them over towards the ¢g?fer dam so Ehat Pope and I\could gdt then. I~ was About 20 feet from the toy of embankment to place, where fPignan was-\and any one standing down there could see] up therhil Frank Hewitt, testified as folYows: I was workine\at te river when \Sigman was hurt, under forey man Burrouchs at the pé\le driver- Sigman ame down the river, Burrouh told him to work orf some\ plank, on the rivek bank, did not} see him hurt- hp was 4t a flat place near the bridge. J0re Was évidence\as to the injury as ty permancvf and to t character of witneses. Plaintiff closed his case. Defendant moved the Gourt for non+suit- Motion denied, and defendant excepted- lst Fxception. The defendant introduced no evidence. Plaintiffs prayer for Special Instructions. he jury are instructed that if they find that the plaintiff was assigned to work under the direction of defendant's agent and fore= wan , Burroughs at a place that was not reasonably safe, and further find that the plaintiff was injured by reason of the unsafe condi- tion of the place where he was assigned to work and this proximate cause main: one defendant would be liable, unless the plaintiff contributed *o his own injury by the manner in which he did the work he had been di- rected to do. Sse eS Sth BAL A% Cele --2-- The defendant owem to the plaintiff the duty to provide for the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work, and to furnish and pre vide reasonably safe ways and appliances, and if the jury should find by the greater weight of the evidence that the place provided by the defendant for the plaintirr tu werk at the tive he was injured, jf ~ me the jury find he was injured, was not a reasonably safe place, F<» fs ik that the ways and appliances furnished and provided were not reason- ably safe, and further find that such failure on the part of defend- ant to provide such safe place for the plaintiff to work, or the failure +o provide such safe ways and appliances, was the divest cause of the injury, then the defendant would be negligent in this re spect and the jury should answer the first issue Yes. Bete ait AGE 4y er ptr --3-- If the jury find by the greater weight of the evidence that the usual way to put the plank down the embankment was to put them down endwuys from the top of the embankment dows to the bottom of the embankment, the lower end resting upon the level at the foot of the embanimen*s and the other end resting back aguinst the sinvaaiomaaa’? and find that this was a reasonably safe way, and further find that at the tine of the injury, if the jury find that the plaintiff was injured, the employces of the defendant and the fellow servants of the plaintiff, had allowed some of the plank to lodge upon said em- banimen*+ and had failed to put th all the way down to the bottom, and find that this was not a reasonably safe method, and find that by reason of this failure, one of the plank lodged upon the said embank- ment fell upon the laintiff and injured him and was direct cause of 7 injury, then the jury will answer the first issue ‘es. earns, Ctl is <ft- anf ha pts --4-- If the jury find that the plaintiff was injured, and find jm shortly pri to the injury, the defendant's employees, Pope down said embankment; tat said ployees to the bottom of said embgriment, and find that they had allowed oth of said plank to dge wpon said embankm ment only part of the way; while said employees were before they had completed ;uth4 em N11 the way down to the hot- tom, the defendant's foreman, Burroughs or ed the said Pope Hewitt to quit the work o uttince down said plank and Wo to another place to work, and fat in obedience to said order, said r and Hewies + left saidplank lodged upon said embankrent, only parte? the way dowp“to the bottom, and find that thus leaving said plank ition was unsafe and dangerous, and further find that one of d hin, and the Yury should answer t issue If the jury find that the plaintiff was injured; that at the the injury he was at the place where he was ordered to be by his foremanl that he was performing the work which he was ordered to perform, and that while he was thus engaged a plank fell from said embankmen* upon the plaintiff and injured him, and that at the time of the injury the plaintiff was exervising ordinary care- that care which Aan ordinarily prudent man would exercise under like circum- stances for his ow safety, then the plaintiff was not guilty of con- tributory negligence and the jury will answer the second isaue No. ot «¢ 3 fe a si” the jury find that the plaintiff was injured while he was in his proper position by a plank falling from said emhankment upon him; that said plank was lodged upon said embankment at 4 place out of sight of the plaintiff in his position, and that the plaintiff could not reasonably foresee that danger of said plank falling ‘upon him and that he exercised ordinary care, he would not be guilty of contributory negligence and the jury will answer the second issue No Ban es a a+ “ff bi fd puto 8-0 -- igre, +i If the jury find that plaintiff was where he was ordered to be; that a plank was lodged upon said embankment above him; that Dlaintiff, from his position could not see said plank; that said plank 11 upon him in said position and injured him; that after said olaintiff c, plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care f the way of said plank and prevent its striking then you are instructed that the plaintiff is not guilty of contibutory negligence and you will answer the second issue No. Baw & Bi gt «verte S/ jepeial instruction as asked by the defendant. £ the jury should find from the evidence ‘hat the plaintiff an action was injured, this fact alone woulc not “title the plain- tiff to rccover, but he must go Turther and satisfy the jury by the greater weight of the evidence, that the injury, if any, was caused by negligence of the defendant, that is, that the defendant failed to avarcitan thet Ane care and canhion necernsarvy to prevent an injury to the plaintiff. The burden od proof is won the plaintiff and upon es = “ him devolves bhe duty of satisfying the jury to its saBisfaction that te plaintiff was not only injured, Sut that 4t was negligence done a Bs lle Ae oe ec 8 se te ty ae EGA BLL wow av WOTibearas ° fee ee + “72> If the jury siould find from the evidence thar the plank that “as glided down the embankment was slided down in the usual way and that the defendant furnished the plaintiff a reasonably safe place +o work @ place where he could see what was Boing on, and further ex- ercised due care and caution in the placing the planks upon the bank s injured under this condition of affairs o recover and the jury should answer the i-sue No. If the jury should find from the evidence that plaintiff with others placed the planks upon *he bank and afterwards went below to take the planks to the coffer dam, and the plaintiff, wcile so work- ing at the bottom of the bank, saw the plank situated upon the hank as they were and saw the plank when it began to slip and att tempted te got out of the way, ( and Gold by ordinary care have avoided the injury) but slipped and fell, and the plank caught his foot bpefore he could get ou‘ of the war , the plaintiff would not he entitled to recover and the jury should answer the first issue No. vas a The words =n parent! hesis were added by the “ourt. Cee A+ ee ik ie eee sco bre tat-> , Biffc +e feiy % oye eS If nek ury should find that the plank upon the bank becane lodged and the plaintiff saw it, and neglected to get uj the hank and release the lodged plank, but caught hold of the other plank at the bottom, which caused the lodged plank to slip down upon him, and he was injured thereby, this would make him cuilty of contirbutory neg- ligence and the jury should answer the second issue Yes. Api 2 St Pasen contrary to the \weight fendaht mo rt, ) tha’ Jitaze's Charge. Sh. poo Spt ov Pe Gentlemen, the plaintiff institutes this action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant has been guilty of negli- gence, and that that negligence has caused an injury to him and he secks +o recover damages on account of the injury. The defendant comes into court and denies that it has been negligent, and denies that it has caused the injury to the plaintiff, and alleges that as there was any negligence that caused this injury that it was the negligence of the plaintiff and that the defendant is not respory- sible for it. And upon thése contentions of the parties certain issues are s'ibmitted to yeu in order that you may settle the controversy between the parties. Xow Jn passing upon this controversy something has been said in the course of the argument about the plaintiff being a laboring man, and the defendant being a corporation. I take it that with a jury of intelligence and character eat it is not necessary to suggest to them that they cannot give one dollar to the plaintiff on account of his »being a laboring man, nor can they refuse him one dollar on account of his heing a poor man, and that they cannot tale into consideration that the defendant is a corporation. The onl: view that ought to enter into the minds of the jury is to ascortain what the facts are, based upon the evidence, and having mede up your minds as to what parts of the evidence you believe and what the facts are, to record those facts as your verdict, whether it is pleasant to the plaintiff or to the defendant. Yow Shere are three issues; first as to negligence of the defendant, then as to contributory negligence and then as to damages. The first issues is, "Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?” Ca he >urdon upon that issue is upon tho plaintiff to satisfy you by the greater weight of the evidence that he wee injured and that he was injured by the negligence of the defendant, So you see in that issuog there are two questions, for merely the question as to whether the plaintiff was injured, but there is also involved in that issue the question as to whether the injury to the plaintiff -2~ (feat go was caused hy the negligence of the defendant, and as I ow, the burden is upon the plaintiff to satisfy sous not beyond a reasonable doubt, but by the preponderance or the greater weight of the evidence that the negligence of the defendant caused him he Yr | the injury. Kew As I said before this week when you cove to pass upon the question of the suatey weight of the evidence that is Mot ~ Artin iit by ja Détenged én OF Po bt dependsupon the credit the jury gives to the Ewan and upon passing on the weight of eviderioe and the manner of the witnesses as they testify, you should take into consideration the testimony of each witness 4 on;nD in passing upon the question as to whether you will believe him and what credit you will give to his testimony. a ae Y be hs sali a ei an Larne Fa ott , oe pees te & p> 2. ‘ Now negligencé which is involved in this issue¥ is usually, “Ang spoxen cf as a failure to perform some duty which the law imposes upon one +o another. It is a failure to do that which a man of ordinary prudence would have done under the circumstances in the cases of failure to exerc'se ordinary care; sw the failure tp perform some duty. So that it hecomes material to inquire what dut:r does the law impose upon the defendant in this action and then to inquire as to whether that duty has been violated y the defendant, and whether the failure to perform that duty has Quxtot” caused injury to the plaintiff. Now a master ss the defendant railroad if vou believe the evidence in this case, occupying the MHioet. KB he Alor relation of emplouxer—+to-epieyer. A ‘master is not only. to provide A oS ’ sound and safe appliances ef machinery, b&t also to provide fpr him sf @ place in which to do his work, and, enter ing into employment the servant has a right to assume that the master has discharged this duty and may without any fear act upon that assumption. That is, that the law imposes upon the master when the servaht enters his employment of providing a reasonably safe place to do this work aad bo perform A+e~ers. Hew khe plaintiff in this case says that this particular duty has been broken, has heen violated and that the violntion of that duty has caused him the injury in this case, Kew dt is not every injury that a defendant, or master who employs @ servant is liable for. It is only for those injuries done to a person, which by the exercise of ordinary care on the part of the a master could reasonably have been foreseen and could reasonably have heen prevented. Again our Supreme Court has said that no in actionable act or omission resulting damage can he deemed mBpxkmaxX darece unless the one responsible therefor could have avoided it hy the *4N = There mist be shown, before a recovery can be hadf a breach of duty and the act or omission in itself must be such that a eae bie: a benz ee reasonably careful man would foresee, and one is not liable for an injury that he could not foresee. Khu & person in the observavige or perfornance of a duty +o another has neither dong nor omitted to do . which ameter under the same conditions and circumstances ould not have done, or omitted to do, he has not failed to use ordinary care. Now thd@ge is mM, duty which the law imposes upon the master of providing a reasonably safe place for the servant to do his work. It imposes upon the m aty of avoiding those injuries which exercise of ordinary care could easily have been foreseen and provided against. It does not, however hold the defendant CeotsnxzyD Ore O-etireRasisds master liable for what is sometimes en act which could not be foreseen, or an unusual and unexpected event from a known cause , + > or an event which proceeds from an unknown cause or is an unusual 2 > fe. ‘2 mwet not be expected, A 4 ew Ene plaintiff in this case contends that there has been @ breach of duty on the part of the acicn The plaintiff contends that the place where he was directed to work was up & steep place; that the defendant knew of the conditions under which he was working; that the defendant by the exercise of reasonable care on his part could and ought to have known that the place wheres he was working was not a safe place to work and that it could have ~ reasonably foresecn that an injury would befall the plaintiff and the plaintiff injured. Bow Ene plaintiff says +ee+ in the first place that he was employed by the defendant; that he was told to work at that place; that he had a right to assume that it was a safe place; that he himself did not know that it was not a safe place; that he had worked yutting down plank down the embankment the day before; that he did whe 4t in the usual way; that after he had slided the plank down the embankment they were carried away, and that he had the right to assume that the persons who were working on that day had performed the work in the same way, and therefore he had the right to assume that no plank were lodged above and that he was so situated that he could not see the plank that injured hin. that the defendant Nad <ba- that morning directed men to go there and put down plank; that ther were not permitted to put down the plank in the usual way; that it is truedf they were sliding the plank down and that 8B OLuG of the plank had caught, that after they had slided the plank down to that point where they caught that it was their duty to put them down all the way, but that they were not permitted to complete their work and under those circumstances they left the plank in a dangerohs position where a man working at the bottom of the enhankment would he likely to disturb them and where the defendant by the exercise of reasonable care would have known where they were and that hy the exercise of reasonable care would sce they were caught on the embankment. New dhe plaintiff says that you ought to believe thea contentions on the part of the plaintiff and that you ought to find that the defendant has failed in the exercise of ordinary care and that thas negligence wee—thenegligesce of the defendant. Now, gentlemen, A if the defendant was negligent and that negligence upon the part of the defendant was +serws as we sometimes speak of it, m@# the direct cause of the injury, then it would be your duty to answer that issuc Yes. ae o , sts fi Merino ot wrharehk atl crveatd hol Jets Now the direct cause of the injury is the real cause. Mew A Fhe defendant upon the other hand says that it has been guilty of no negligence and that the evidence in this case, if you accept all of it to be true, would not justify you to find that the defendant — a yy has been guilty in this matter. Kew Lhe defendant says that ~ these people were the employees of the company who had been in the habit of getting down these plank from the top of the hill, The defendant also says that the plaintiff was working at that place; that he had been working out in the river; that he says that while he was out there that if plank had lodged upon the embankment that aie he could have seen them and that he had a better opportunity, as the defendant contends to sce the situation and to see if there was any danger of that plank falling upon him and injuring hin. we savs that the plaintiff had a better opportunity than the others to see those plank. He argues +0 trou that if he had seen it 4 he would have left the place. Hb says he did'nt do it, and that, the plaintiff with the opportunity did not foresee that ther@ Was any danger ad that the defendant could not be expected to see that there WAS. Rad argues to you that the defendant could have foreseen — EZ Aaxw -oaH~-aS~ otno ft Chuua~t ——+ i+ and seat would hea mreater degree of care on its part than on his part. The defendant also argues to you that upon this evidence you cannot tell how this injury was caused. He argues to vou wpon the evidence of the plaintiff that he says he did not know where the plank came fron. He argues to you that it was a matter of conjecture only as to whether the plank came from the hill. Ao witness testified as to where the plank came from. Yo witness testificd as to how the injury was caused, and if a matter of conjecture then vou cannot find from the evidence that it was to »lanc. He also argues to you that it was an accident; that it was something that could not be forescen. T at it could / not he possible that an accident of this kind was occasioned by their neglience. Now fentlemen upon consideration of the contentions upon the part of the plaintiff and the contentions upon the part of the defendant if this evidence satisfies vou, not heyond a reasonahle doubt, but by the greater weight pf the evidence that the plaintiff was injured; that that injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant and that negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, it is your duty to answer the first issue yes, and if not, no, Corn and if upon a consideration of the whole evidence you do not find — Ske freee” a4 ;rro atues 642-4 Bie, a0 he etree it would be your duty to answer it no, Rew Ahe defendant and the plaintiff have asked for instructions upon the first and second issues. > jury are inetrdAgeted that i find thst tue aintiff was assigned to work under defendant's arent d foreman, Burrou@ys at a place thy? was no reasonably safe, and f her find that th& plaintiff was =G= reason of tha ‘ania condition of the place where he was assisned to workNand this was the proximate cause of the injury, the defendant Weuld he liable, unless the plaintiff contribxvted to his own injurs by @e manner in which he did the work wich he had heen directed to do.” "If the jury shoul? find from the evidence that the plaintiff im this action was injured, this fact alone would not entitled the plaintiff to recover, but he must go further and satisfy the jury by the\greater Meight of the evidence that the injurv’, if any, was caused\yy negligence of the defendant, that is, that the defendant faijéd to wxercise that due care and caution necessary to prevent gf injury to tha plaintiff. The burden of proof is upon the~plaintiff and upon hin devolves the duty of satisfving t¥e jury to its satisfaction that the plaintiff was not only intured, but that it was negligence done \% the defendant v v , & ~ _—_ ’ GC mpany - Jtp~ ecb a a ah ce a i i ae idbas x ft : 3 a a ee ay Fey ern Sie Co mk Now I will explain that just a moment. I do not mean by that + that if he saw the plan! : hat it was coming so rapidly that he could not have avoided the injury, but under those conditions he tried to avoid it and tripped and fell, I do not mean that that would prevent his recovery if otherwise he would he entitled to recover, Now gentlemen as I have stated to you, the hurden upon that you first issue is upon the plaintiff, Jr he has so satisfied that he was injured hy the negligence of the defendant, then you would it yes, if otherwise, no, or as I have stat oayou cannot. ore ee find ,the facts from the evidence a+¢+f you answer the first issue Go O18 «1s mh wet ee ee Jt-0 nO, , +8en you cannot. consider the second issue. If you answer the first issue ves then you will proceed to answer the second issue Did the plaintiff contribute to his own injury as alle ed in the ow feet ’ to satisfy you that the plaintiff ws negligent and that the plainsitf- a. The burden upon that issue is meen KRM Rimi he he a+ ae a A acontribused +o his injury as a proximate cause of the injury. ewe oe wee I have stated to you that it was the dutr of the defendant to exer@icec ordinary gare on its part. It was also the duty of the A» plaintiff to exercise ordinary care on #*s part in order to prevent ' injury to himself. If he failed to exercise that care satr——-X a 22 ordinary prudence and * hat failure on his part was the cause ol th: 4njuty, then he would he guilty of canto ules negligence, and if you should so find thte-to-be-true-tken it would be your duty to answer the second issue ves. wow fhe Simei” 4¢ was his duty as argued by counsel to use his senses. It was his dut:, to use his sight and hearinge oittew the defendant argue s mt to +? the. plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care. ME argues if these plank were situated as the plaintiff contends, that they wore up 20 ft., that when he was out in the river he could see the plank, and that he had an opportunity of seeing those plank: that he contends that the plank that injured him s > Ps v was 22 ft. above him; that he was at the foot of the embankment; > > that he had an opportunity to see; that if he did see; .or by the exercise of ordinary care could have seen; that he would have > known that the plank was fastened and that he could have foreseen J and have wnderstood that the plank would strike him. The defendant arrues that he could have’ foreseen those things by the exercise of ordinary care; that if he failed to do this, allure Was the cause of the injury. Now the plaintiff says . did exercise ordinary care. In the first ;lace he contends right to assume that employees of the company down the plank on that day as they had the day before; had the right to ass’me they were all put down the hill; that believing they had done so it was not necessary to make a careful examination of the bank. He also argues that if he hae made a careful examintion working where the defendant directed him +6 work that he could not have seen the plank that had caught behind the plank where he was working, and he argues to you that he did oxercise ordinary care, tat care which a man of ordinary prudence would have exercised under ordinary circun1stances, He also argos to you with reference to get*ing out of the way that he had no opport:mity to get out of the way after the plank started; that it was only 20 ft. ahove him and that he undertook to get out of the way and that because he could not get out of the way the plank caught him and that he was not negligent himself and that Bie a reasona»ly safe place to work, and to fur provide reasonably safe ways and appliances, an by the defendan,; f the plaintiff to injured, if the jury, Sind that he safe place, or that the were not reasonably safe he defendant would he nepligetit in this respect and the jury should answer the first, wr issue Yos- the jury should find from the evidence that tye plank +hat was sisded down the embankment was slide own in the usual way and that the fendant furnisned plaintiff a reasonably t ar. safe place to work, a p whers te could sce what was going on, and further exercised due the » nd that the oft affairs, he would not he enti should answer the first issue No.* the jury find ty the creater weight of the evidence that the usual way’ put the plank down the embankment was to down endways fr the top of the emhanknent fi to the bottom of t/ the embankment, the er end restin fon the level at the foot of the embankment, this was a reasonably safe way, of the injury, if the jury find injured, the e oyees of the defendant and lure, one of the the said embankment f upon the plaintiff e of the injury, then the ~9- plaintiff e plank situated they were and saw the plank whem it began to slip out of the way and could by ordinary care have circumstances for his own safety guilty of contributory negligence akd the jury will answer second issue No. him; that said p out of sight plaintiff could not asonably forsee that dangar of said plank falling -ipon him and tht he exercised ordinary re, he would not be guilty of contributory\negligence and the jury Will answer the second issue No. If the uy find that plaintiff was where he was ordered to be; that a pl&nk was lodged upon said\emhankment above hin; that plaintiff from kis position could not Bee said plank; thgt said plank fell upon Wm in said position injured him; that after gaid plank began falling, plaintiff, by e exercise of prdinary care could not get t of the way of said plank and prqvent its striking him, then yo\¥ are instructed thay the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence and you 11 answer jthe second issue No. If the jury ould find that the plank upon the pank became lodged ‘and the. pl tiff saw it, and neglected to eqt up the =i issue ‘Yes. Now gentlemen, as I have stated to you, the burden upon that second issue is upon the defendant to satisfy you by the greater weight of evidence that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence. If the defendant has so satisfied you, you would answer that issue Yes, if otherwise, ‘o- 'f you answer the. first issue Yes and the Second issue No, then you willd proceed to the consideration of the third issue, What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover” Wead—eentremen, ir you find the first issue Yes, and the Second issue No in answer to the third issue the plaintiff would be entitled to recover a te were tle compensation for his injury. Le would not be entitled to recover anything wy the way of punishment. It would be such sum as would Se a fair compensation for the injiry. In passing upon what is 4a fair compensation for the injury :o'! have the right to take into consideration the sufferings of the plaintiff, if you helieve he did suffer. You have the right to take into consideration his loss of time, if you believe he did lose time. You have the right to take into consideration any permanent injury he has sustained. You have the right to take into consideration his reduced capacity for earning a living. Kew fhe plaintiff says he has hu or, lost time. In the first place heFnas suffered great pain. He says that his capacity for earning a living has heen impaired; that hoe has a stiffened ankle; that he lost 17 months when he was able to do very little work, and he says that he is entitled to $2000.00 dollars damage. The defendent on the other hand says if you find the plaintiff is entitled to recover anything at all, outy Peo peee. ot that he is entitled .to recover @empeansatory damages. He-mdmi-ee tO 2 7“ that;it he-~weo~brifnred—mike—abdeges . fhat according to the evidence in the case that there was only 335 days he had the attention of a doctor; that after that time it was not necessary for a doctor to see hin. He argues to you that if his injury was permanent he would have had a doctor examine him more recently and come and tell you the extent of his injury, and he further says that if the plaintiff is entitled to recover that he ought not torecover as for a permanent injury, because there is no serch evidence of that fact, end Jf vrou should come to that issue taking into consideration the matters I have mentioned, remembering that the plaintiff if entitled to recover #e would be entitled to recover what you believe upon careful consideration of this evidence me would he av cnt+itled—to recores,_what«or+hink fair and reasonable compensation. The issues however, are to be determined and should ve determined arene upon a fair consideration of the evidence. eet Piece Se foe wh oe Kren _ a ZZ. ipa Oe oo 2 se. Z~ a e+ .-. eee ¢ fen Ate) Spee, , Lec > < at the cRhose of the evidence. (2) That the Court erred in its charge to the Jury. (3) That the Court erred in giving plaintiff's special instructions number ed 44e<-1-7 Be peat (4) That the Court erred in not giving defendant's special instrue — a - ions pe edo oe A Pres Seat rotion denied and da 4erehaant appealed to Supreme Court. - Judgment. This caige coming on to be heard at this. term of the Court vefore his Honor W. R. Allen, Judge anda Jury, and bein heard and the jurv havin, 2sponded to the tesues submitted to them as follows: ~ ~ plaintiff injured by. the negligence of the he complaint Answer: Yes. 2nde Did the ain’ f contribute to his own injury™as <n the answer Answer: No. What danage, RY idt he plaintiff entitled to re- $900.00 therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the Sigman recover of the defendant, the Southern of £900.00 Nine Hundred Dollars. r considered and adjudged by the Court that the the defendant the cost of the action to be taxed Fuad the Clerk of the Court. Allen, Judge. Notice of appeal vaived in open Court. Appeal bond fixed at $25.00. Sixty days after Court allowed defendant to serve case on appeal and thirty days thereafter ablowed plaintiff +o serve counter Ke Case or. oxcoption. a C2 ; < us _C-o—t4 a+1244~f | tae 2 prea, chat nitive b . i twee, 49 s/Pe¥ tea Ta j © cc ol Rane agp ghy om oe cs » 7 : ¥ : ; : Werth Carolina ¢ Iredell County # Be it romembered that at a Superior Court In the November Term Superior Court. 19035, begun and held in and for the County of Iredell on the 9th Monday after the 2X lst Monday in September, when and where His Honor, and prosiding, when and where the following proceedings Willaim R, Iredoll County—-In the Superior Court, E. M. Sigman C T i Summons for Rolief. , onpany,#, a / Allen was prosoent were had: siriff of Iredell County—Grootins:?-— You aro hereby commanded to swimon Souther Railway Company, tho Defendant above named, if it be found within your County, to bo and annvear bofore the Judge of our Superior Court, at a Court to be held for the County of Iredell at the Court House in Statesville, 1. C., on the 9th Monday aftor the lst Monday of September, the same being the Srd, day of liov., and answor the complaint, a copy of which will be deposited in the office of the Clork of the Superior Court for said County, within tho first throo days of said Term, and let said Defendant take notico if it fail to answer to the said complaint thin that time, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the reliof domanded in the conplaint. Horeoof fail not, and of this summons make due return, Given under my hand and sval of said Court, this 6th day of Sept., 1902. J. A. Hartness, Clerk Superior Court of Iredoll County. Tidorsed: Received October 20, 1902; served October 20, 1902, by reading tho within summons to D. M. Coinor, Dopot agent of the Southern Railway Company at Statesville, 7. C., and delivering a copy thereof to hin. Wyooft, Sh ptt y res Leu € ate By Scrocrs, D. ‘weeal’ Complaint. North Carolina # Iredell County 5 sea M. Sigman vs. In the Superior Court. “ovomber Term 1902, Compie*’ ot alia Southern Railway Company # The plaintiff complains and alleges:- Pirst:- That the defendant is a railway corporation duly chartered and organizod and operating a railroad commonly called the Westorn North Carolina Railroad between Salisbury, Statosville, Catawba and Asheville, controlling, using, maintaining and equiping the said railroad for railroad purposes, including the roadbed, right of way, tracks, bDridsos, culverts, otc., and Operating its trains for the carriage of passengers and freight for hire over the said railroad in North Carolina, Secondt:=— That at the times heroinafter mentioned the plaintiff? was in the employment of the defendant doins work as a carnoenter under & boss by the name of Hewott, and was working along with other em , . sloyeos of the defendant in repairing and working upon the bridge of the defendant a cross the Catawba river near Catawbe Station, and his wagos at that time wore $1.25 per day. Third:— That on tho 25th of Soptembor, 1901, whilst in the emloy-— mont and working unon tho dridro aforasaid of tho defandant and in . his regular lino of work he was injured by the neslizencoe of the defendant and its omployeos as follows: The plaintifr was assisned to work noar tho brides at the foot of a stoep incline by his immediate foreman Burrouchs whose ordor thoy it was his duty to Yo amc which wore out of his sight placed abovo him somo 12 or 15 feat certain heavy timbers to be v-ho defendant and its omployoes had used in connection vith repairs on de!ondant'’s railroad bridge, SEARO POPP RIR® across the Catawbe Rivor, so that he could not soe them and in 4 dangerous position and negligontly placed upon the said steep incline in such a way as that such stmix a 4 yn : way 7 Te « ‘ : . i . — a. : imbers wore likoly at ; vime to slide and fall upon the plain-— “2 tiff whilst he was ongaged in the work at the foot of the stoep where he was then assigned; that the defendant and its employeos hai given the plaintiff no warning at all of these timbers thus placed in dangerous positions abovo him and plaintiff did not know of their being there so that he might be warned of the danger, and suddenly and without warning & portion of the said timbers, to-wit: a largo heavy plank of the length of sbout 22 tmmge ft, 12 inchos wide and £ inches thick slid duddenly down ondways upon the plaintiff and (3) crushed his loft foot and ankle; that the defendant and its agonts failed and negleoctod to put any supports or make any provis-— ion against the dangers of tho timbers sliding down upon the plaintiff. That the plaintiff's foot end ankle was so severely crushed and iniured that he was confined to bed on account thereof for about soven weeks and he was unablo to walk for about nine months and he is now unable to use his said foot and walk upon it without having a crutch or staff to bear his woight upon; that ho has been caused thoroby to onduroe great paid of body and mind in conseqi » vw Q © of his ingurios, and ho is advisod snd believes that his foot and ankle aro permanently “Te his ingurios have been so severe that they have disabled him from performing the labors he has hitherto 200n able to porform wherewith to obtain a livlihoods that at the xm rears and he was then obtaining $1.25 por day for his work; that his occupation has been his injury he that of a farmer and carpenter and up to the timo of had been in the mupkuymgukx onjoyment of good health and ablo to work and support his wife and children; that by reason of the neg- + } » ‘ ti m= > . . “ . 5 } o. 4 ligence of tho defendant and its agonts aforesaid causing him the . physical and montal sufforin wn ot - } A > 4 om . = a . ‘s ‘ i > . 1 ly endamaged and for the purposes of this action ho allogos that he + * * le — } r ~~ " " ATV as © has been endamaged in the sum of > Thousand Dollars ($2000.00). oo . fm os hs TP . s.. - .4 ane 4% ? ¢ ’ + : ‘4 #nerefore he demands judrmont of tho defendant in the sum one . Ae > e . oe of Two Thousand Dollars ($2000.00) )and the costs of this action. Long & Nicholson, ww ad eer SP an « . . Attorneys for the Plaintiff. “ °F? “az . ’ : ~ , . 7 o ~ .” Te J 7 * « M. Sigman being duly sworn says tia: the foregoing complaint X X \ 2 - ' & wee ad 4 2 ~~ , ort ad eA ‘ ’ ‘ ‘ aa t . is true of his own knowledge except as ) Luose things vtierein stated upon information and belief, and as to those, he believes it to be true, 1, M. Sigman, °C : vor’? 0 and subscribed before me this tho llth day of SOpt., 1902, He Be Boyd, D purty Cc. Se C. Filed 20, Oct., 1902, Ansver. North Carolina ¥ In tho Superior Court Iredell County 4+ Novoriber Term 1902, (4) E. M. Sigman iu i va. a Answer, Southorn Railway Company # The defendant answors tho complaint and says:- FPirst:- That it is a corporation duly and originally created, or- ganized and. existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of Virginia and operates its trains for tho carriago of froight and passengers over its several lines of railway. . - ‘ A Vn’ 0 " 3 4 oe , — 4. 2 . i. ~ . Second:— That the allegations contained in the second paregranh Je of the complaint abe not true and are denied, except that plaantiff was in the employmont of the defendant. Third:- That the allegations contained in the third paragraph of the complaint are not. true and are deniod. And for a further defonse and answer to plaintiff's cause of action & Ta ; - my+ enwe vie aol Bniaeé ru wie & First:- That plaintiff contributed to his own injury in his care- less and nogligoent handling of the plank, pormitting the same to slide down upon him and his failurys to avoid the injury as he could have done by moving out of the vay; that plaintiff further contribdut-— 1 7 +" ° We » rT ‘ ; Ae, a , . wp 4 + 1 ‘ , - ed to his injury by attiompti to remove o plank without first look-— ‘ jinn ten . % * » 7 sea wr wr ? a - ’ v9) ~ ing tO see whether any other planks were liable to move down upon c ey re ~tTa 4 ‘teen we eee 4 - = a? “yr, * . 1 4 . , 4 Second:= sat piointiff was guilty of contributory negligence in not gotting out ef the way of the moving plank; in not looking to OY vv e+e, d s00 whother other plank would slide uno: him, and in attompting to remove one plank with other plank rosting upon it and liable to slide down upon hin, Third!—~—That plaintiff assumed tho risk when he accented the service of romoval of tho plank; that he could soo and know that theplank were liable to slide down upon him, and the risk was incident to the service to be porformed, Having fully answered, defondant prays that it rocover its costs in its behalf expended and go hunco without day, Chas. Price &1. 6, Caldwoll, Counsel for Defendant, D, M, Coiner being duly sworn says: That he is tho local and rosidont agent of tho defendant, Southern Railway Company, a% Statesville, N. C., and that edge, except as information and believes it to b Syvorn to and subscribed before 1902. o, = Pilod Mov., 6, Case on Appeal, 7 a (4) the foregoing answor is true as of his own knowl- to those mattors and things theroin stated upon beliof and as to those maiters and th ings, ho 9 true, D. M. Coiner, agt. So. Ry. Co, me this the 6th day of Navembor . Boyd, Deputy ©. Ss. C. 902, This is an action tried before His Honor, W. R. Allen, Judgo and a jury at tho November Torm 1905, of the Superior Court of Iredell County, upon the followin Issues, th esta issues: (1) Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of tho defendant as alleged in the complaint? (2) Did the plaintiff contribute to his o injury as alleged in tho answor? (3 Tha Co aie, if a vs Ls >. OLE tiff titled to recover? The followir is tho evidence ia the case: The following arco the instructions prayed by the plaintiff and given by tho Court: (1) The jury are instructed that if thoy find that the plaintiff was assigned to work under the direction of dofendant'’s agent and foreman, Burroughs at a place that was not reasonably safe, and fur- ther find that the plaintiff was injured by reason of the unsafe condition of the place where he was assigned to work and this MXEXEX Was tho proximate cause of the injury, tho defend- be liable, unloss tho plaintiff contributed to his own injurt/by the mannor in which he did the work which he had been directed to do, (2) The defendant owes to the plaintiff the duty to provide for the plaintiff a roasonably safe place to work, and to furnish and provide reasonably safe ways and appliances, and if tho jury should find by the gronter woight of the evidence that the place provided yy the dofendant for the plaintiff to work,at the timo he was in- jJured, if the jury find he was injured, was not a reasonably safe places, or that tho ways and appliances furnished and provided were not roasonably safo, and furthor find that such failure on the part of the dofendant to provide such safe place for the plaintiff to work or the failure to provide such safe ways and appliances, was the direct cause of the injury, then the defendant would bo negligent in this rospect and the jury should answor the first issue Yes. (3) If tho jury find by tho groater weight of the evidence that the usual way to put the plank down the ombankment was to put therm down endways from the tep ef the oubankmont down to the bettom of the embankment, the lowor ond rosting upen the level at the foot of tho ombanknent and the ether end resting back against the embankment, and find that this was a reasonably safo way, and further find that St the time of tho injury, if the jury find that the plaintiff was injured, the employoes ef the defendant and the fellew servants of the plaintiff, had allowed somo of the plank to ledge upon said eombaniment and had failod te put them all the way down to the bottom, and find that this was net a reasonably safe method, and find that by reason of this failare, one of the plank ledged upon the said embankment fell upon tho plaintiff and injured him and was the diréot cause of the injury, then the jury will answer tho first issue Yos, (6) If tho jury find that tho plaintiff was injured: that at the time gf tho injury he was at the place where he was ordered to be by his foroman; that he was porforming the work which he was ordored to, perform, and that while ho was thus ongaged a plank fell from said emabnkment upon tho plaintiff and injurod him, and that at the time ef the injury the plaintiff was oxorcising erdianry care—that care which an ordinarily prudent man would exercise under like circumstances for his own safety, then the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence and the jury will answer the second issue To. (7) If the jury find that the plaintiff was injured while ho was in his proper pesition by a plank falling from said oembanknent upen hin; that said wiank was lodged upon said embankment at a place out of sight of the plaintiff Ar his position, and that the plaintiff could not reasonably foresee sack danger of said palnk falling upon him and that he exercised ordinary care, he would not be guilty of con- tributory noglisonce and the jury will answer the socond issuo No. (8) If the jury find that the plaintiff was whoro ho wa: ordered to abeve . be; that a plank was lodged upon said embankment mzex him; that plaintiff, from his pesition could not see said Bamkx plank; that said plank fell upon him in said position and injured him; that after said plank bogan falling, plaintiff, by the exercise of ordi ary care could not get out of tho way of said plank and prevont its striking him, then you are instructed that the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence and you will answor the second issue Tio, The following are the instructions prayod by the defendant, showing those given and those not given:- (1) If the jury should find from the etidence that the plaintirr in this action was injured, this fact alone would not entitle the plaintiff to recover, but he mst go further and satisfy the jury by the greater vwoight of the evidences, that the injury, if any, was caused by the negligence of the defendant, that is,that tho defendant failed to exercise that due care and caution necossary to prevent an injury to the plaintiff, The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and upon him devolves tho duty of satisfying the jury to 4ts satisfaction that tho plaintiff vas not only injured, but that it was negligence dono by the defendant Company. (Given) (2) -If tho jury should find from tho ovidenco that the plank that was slided down the ombankment was slided down in the usual way and that the defendant furnished the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work, a place where he could see what was going on, and further exorcised of due caro and caution in the placing the planks upon the bank and that tho plaintiff was injured under this condi- tion of affairs, he would not be entitled to recover and the jury a... W should answor the first issue lho, (3) If the jury should find from the ovidenee that tho plaintiff with others placed the paanks upen the bank and afterwards wont belew to take the planks to the coffer dam, and the plaintiff, ® while se working at the bottom of the bank, saw the plank situated .* when it began to 7 upon the bank as they were and saw the plank slip and attempted to get out of the way,(and could by ordinary care have avoided the injury) but sliped and fell, and the plank caught his f@ot before he could got out of the way, the plaintiff would not be ontitled to recover and tho jury should answor the Siz °.. # first issue To. ( The above instruction was medified az by inserting the language in the parenthesis, and given as modified) (4) If the jury should find that the plank upon the bank became lodged, and the plaintiff saw it, and neglected to got up the bank and release the lodged plank, but caught hold of the other plank at the bettom, which caused tho lodged plank to slip dewn upen hin, and he was injured thereby, this would mako him guilty of contribdu- tory negligence and the jury should answer the second issue "Yos,” )Given) (5) If the jury should find that tho plaintiff saw the plank upon the bank, and saw it slip and begin to move seme ten er twelve ° feet above him, and he attempted to step out of the way, but sliped and fell, causing the plank to catch his feot, the jury are instructod to answer tho first issue "fo," for the reason that this would be an accident, and the defondant would not be responsible for the same as an accident, (Not given, because in 3rd.) (6) If the jury should find that the work to be performed was obviously dangorous and the plaintiff knew this facet and continued in the employment, then he would not be entitled to revever, because of his assumption of the risk incident to the service. (Not siven) (7) Prem all the evidence in the case tho plaintiff is not entitled to recover. (Not siven) The following is the charge of the Court:- Judge's Charge. Gentlemen, the plaintiff institutes this action against the defenda+, alleging that the defendant has been guilty of negli- gence, and that that negligence has caused an injury to him and he secks +0 recover damages on account of the injury. The defendant comes into court and denies that it has been neligent and denies that it has caused the injury to the plaintiff, and alleges that if there was any neglirence that caused this injury that it was the neglirence of the niaintiff and that the defendant is not respon- sible for it. And upon those contentions of the parties certain issues are submitted to you in order that vou may settle the controversy hetween the parties. Now in passing wpon this controversy something has heen said in the course of the argument about the plaintiff heing a laboring man and the defendant being a corporation. T take it that with a jury of intelligence and character that it is not necessary to sugrest to them that they cannot give one dollar to the plaintiff on account of his »eing a laboring “an, nor can they refuse him one dollar on account of his being a poor man, and that they cannot take into consideration that the defendant is a corporation. The onl: view that ought to enter into the minds of the jury is to ascertain woat the facts are »based upon the evidence, and having made up your minds as to what parts of the evidence you believe and what the facts are, to record those facts as your verdict, whether it is pleasant to the plaintiff or to the defendant. Now there are three issues; first as to negligence of the defendant, then as to contributory negligence and then as to damages. The first issue is "Was the plaintiff injured hy the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?* Now, the burden upon that issue is upon the plaintiff to satisfy you by the greater weight of the evidence that he was injured and that he was injured »y the negligence of the defendant, so you see in that issue there are two questions, not merely the question as to whether the plaintiff was injured, but there is also involved in that issue the question as to whether the injury to the plaintiff Was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and as I say, the burden is upon the plaintiff to satisfy you, not bevond a reasonable doubt, »vut by tre preponderance or the greater weight of the evidence that the negligence of the defendant caused him the injurv. Now as Tf said before this week when you come to pass upon the question of the greater weight of the evidence that is to depend pon the credit the jury gives to the evidence, and upon passing on the weight of ewidence and the manner of the witnesses as they testify, you should take into consideration the testimony of each witness in the rendering of your verdict, in passing upon the question as to whether you will pelicve nim aua Wwaat credit you will a his testimony. Now negligence which is involved in this issue is usually spoken of as a failure to perfonp sone duty which the law imposes upon one to another. It is a failure to do that which a man of ordinar:’ prudence would have done under the circ: mstances in the case, of failure to exercise ordinary care, in the failure to perform some duty. So that it hecomes material to inquire what duty does the law impose upon the defendant in this action, and then +o inquire as to whether that duty has heen violated Sy the defendant, and whether the failure to perform that duty has caused injury to the plaintiff. Yow a master is the defendant railroad if you believe the svidence in this case, occupying the relation of employer to employee. A master is not only to provide OM} sound and safe appliances @€ machinery, but also to provide for him @ place in which to do his work, and entering into employment the servant has a right to assime that the master has discharged this duty and may without any fear act upon that asswaption. That is, that the law imposes upon the master when the servant enters his employment, of providing a reasonably safe place to do fnis work and to perform his work. “ow the plaintiff in this case says that this particular duty has been broken, has been violated and that the violation of that duty hes caused him the injury in this Case. Now it is not cvery injury that a defendant, or master who wmploys a servant is liable for. It is only for those injuries done to a person which »by *he exercise of ordinary care on the part ~3- of the phakeeter master could have reasonably have been foreseen an could reasonably have been prevented. Again our Supreme Court has said that no act or omission resulting in damage can be deemed Sayniee eaaies unless the ne responsible therefor could have avoided it. There must be shown, b*fore a recovery can be had, a breach of duty and the act or omission in itself must be such that a reasonably careful man would foresee, and one is nor Viahte for an infurzy that he could not foresee. OA person in the observetion or performance of a duty to another has neither done nor omitted ober frsdevofny Crrefud + H Mt dor to do, which another, under the same conditions and «).rcumstances would not have done, or omitted to do, he has not failed to use ordinary care. Now there is a duty which the law impusco woul tus master of providing a reasonably safe piace for the servant to do his work. It imposes upon the master the duty of avoiding those injuries which hy the exercise of ordinary care could easily have heen foreseen and provided against. It does not, however hold the defendant master liable for what is sometimes an act which could not ne loresesn, or an unusual and unexpected event from a known cause, or an event, which proceeds from an unknown cause or i8 an unusual effect of a known cause and therefore must not be expected, and the master would not be liahle. Now the plaintiff in this case contends that there has been a breach of duty on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff contends that the place where he was directed to work was upea steop place; that the defendan?’ knew of the conditions under which he was working; that the defendant hy the exercise of reasonable care on his part could and ough* to have known that the place where he was working was not a safe place to work and that it could have reasonably foreseen that an injury would pefall the plaintiff and the plaintiff injured. Now the plaintiff says that in the first piece that he was employed by the defendant; that he was told to work at that place; that he had & right to assuvye that it was a safe place; that he himself did not know that it was not a safe place; that he had workdd putting down plank down the embankment the day before; that he did it in the usual way; that after he had slided the plank down the embankment they were carried away, and that he had the rignt to assume +hat the persons who were working or that day had performed the work in the same way, and therefore he had the right to assume that no plank were lodged ahove and that he was 80 situated that he could not see the plank that injured him. That the defendant had on that morning directed men to go there and put down plank; that they were not permitted to put down the plank in the usual way; that it is true they were sliding the plank down and that some of the plank had caught, that after they had slided the plank down to that peint where they caught that it was their duty to pt the down all the way, but that they were not permitted to complete their work and under those circumstances they iert the plank in a danger ais position where a man working at tne bduivom of the embankment would be likely to disturd them and where the defendant “yr the exercise of reasonable care would have known where they were and that by the exercise of reasonable care would see that they were caught on the embankment. Now the plaintiff says that you ought to believe the conten- tions on the part of the plaintiff and that you ought to find that the defendant has failed in the exercise of ordinary care and that that neglicence was the negligence of the defendant. Now Gentlemo) 4f the defendant was negligence anda that negligence upon the part of the defendant was *E@R as We sunetines Speak vl sv, BD vile direct cause of the injury, then it would be your duty to answer that issue Yes. Wow the direct cause of the injury is the real cause. Now the defendant upon the other hand says that it has heen guilty of no negligence and that the evidence in this case, if you accept all of it to be true, would not justify you to find that the defandan* has been guilty in this matter. Now the defendant says that these people were the employees of the company who had heen in the habit of getting down these plank from the top of the hill. The defendan* also says that the plaintiff was working at that place; that he had been working out in the river; that he says that while he was out there that if plank had lodged upon the embankment that a he could have seen them and that he had a better opportunity, as the defendant contends to see the situation and to seo if there, was acy danger of that plank falling typon him and injuring him. says that the plaintiff had a better opportunity than the others to see those plank. Se argues to you that if he had seen it he would Rare left the place. He say& he did'nt do it, and that theplaintiff with the opportunity did not foresee that there was any danger and that the defendant could not be expected to see that there was. He argues to you that the defendant could have foreseen 4+ and that it would be a greater degree of care on its part than on his part. The defendant also argues to you that upon this . evidence vou cannot tell how this injury was caused. He argues:to vou upon the evidence of the plaintiff that he says he dic not know where the plank came fron. He argues to you that it was a matter of conjecture only as to whether the plank came from the hill. testifies as to where the plank came from. No witness njury was caused, and if a matter of conjecture than you carmot find from the evidence that it was hla. He also acures to you that it was an accident; that it was something that could not be foreseen. That it could not be possible that an accident of this kind was occasioned by their negligence. Now centlemen upon consideration of the contentions upon the s part of the plaintiff and the contentions upon the part of the def endant if this evidence satisfies you, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but by the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff was injured; that *+hat injury was caused hy the negligence of the defondant and that negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, ¢hen it 4s :rour duty to answer the first issue yes, and if not, no, and if upon a consideration of the whole evidence you do not find 44 to be true tuen it would he your duty to answer it no. Now the defendant and the plaintiff have asked instructions upon the first and second issues. "The jury are instructed that if they find that the plaintiff was assijmed to work under the direction of defondant's agent and foreman, Burroughs at a place that was not reasonably safe, and further find that the plaintiff was injured by reason of the unsafe condition of the place where he was assigned +o work and this was *+he proximate cause of the injury, the defendant would be liable, unless the plaintiff contributed to hir own injury by the manner in which he did the work which he had been directed to do." "Tf the jury should find from the evidence that the plaintiff in this action was injured, this fact alone WOuld not entitle the nigintiff® to rec 1+ eo met po further and satisfy the jury br the greater weight of the evidence that +he injury, if any, was caused by hegligence of the defendant, that is, that the defendant failed to exercise that dus care and caution necessary to prevent an injury to the plaintiff. ™he burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and upon him devvlves the duty of a satisfring the jury to its satisfacticn that the plaintiff was not onl: injured, but that it was negligence done hy the defendant company. Now I will explain that just a moment. I do not mean hy that that if he sav the plank come sliding down upon the hill and that 4+ was comine so rapidly that he could not have avoided the injury, hut under those conditions he tried to ayoid it and tripped and fell, = do not mean that that would prevent his recovery if otherwise he would be entitled to recover. Yow centlemen as I have stated to you, the burden upon that irst issue is upon the plaintiff if he has s0 satisfied you that he was injured by the negligence of the defendant, then you would answer i+ yes, if otherwise, no, or as I have stated you camot find the facts from the evidence and if you answer the first issue No, then you cannot consider the second issue. If you anewer the first issue yes then you will proceed to answer the second issue, / Did the plaintiff contribute to his own injpry as alleged in the ia AO complaint. The burden upon that issue 18, to tisfy you that the plaintiff is negligent and that the plaintiff contri buted to his injury as a proximate cause of the injury. Now I have statod to zou that it was the duty of the defendant to exercise ordinary care on its pert. I was also the duty of the plaintiff we +o exercise ordinary care on Stu part in order to prevent injury +o himself. If ho failed to exercise that care and an ai Seen ordinary prudence and that failure on his part was the catse-d the injury, then he would be guilty of contributory negligence, and if :ou should so find this to be true then it would be your duty to answer the second issue ves. Now the plaintiff says 4 was his duty as argued »y counsel to use his senses. It was his duty to use his sight and hearing. Now the defendant argues that the plaintiff did not exer@ise ordinary care. He argues if these plank were situated as the plaintiff contends,, that they were up 20 ft., that when he was out in the river he t.* ho hnd an opportunity of seeing contends that the plank that injured him sbove him; that he was at the foot of the embankment; ec had an opportunity to see; that if he did see; or by the egercise of ordinary care could have seen; that he would have nown that the plank was fastened and that he could have foreseen and have understood that the plank would strike him. The defendant argues that he could have foreseen those things by the exercise of ordinary care; that if he failed to do this, that failure was the cause of the injury. Now the plaintiff says that he did exercise ordinary care. In the first place he -ontends that he h whe right to assume that employees of the company had put down the plank on that day as they had the day befop that he had the right to assume the: were all put down the hill; that believing they had done so it w not necessary to make a careful examination of the bank. He also argues that if he had made a careful examination working where the defendant directed him to work that he could not have seen the plank that had caught behind *he plank where he was working, and he argues to you that be did exercise ordinary care, that care which a man of ordinary prudence would have exercised under ordinary circumstances. He also argues to you with reference to getting out of the way that he had no opportunity to get out of the way after the plank started; that it was only 20 ft. above him and that he undertook to cet out of the way and that because he could not cet out of the way the plank caught him end *het be was not negligent himself and that his negligence did not contritmite to his ininry. The aefendant owes to the plaintiff the duty to provide for the pinintiff a reasonably safe place to work, and to furrish and provide reasonably safe wars end arrliences, and if the jury should find hy the greater weight of the evidence that the place provided by the defendant for the plaintiff to work at the time he was injured, if the jury find that he was injured, was not e reasonably safe place, or that the ways and appliances furnished and provided were not reasonably safe, and furkhher find that such failure on the part of defendant to provide such safe place for the plaintiff to work, or the failure to provide such safe ways and appliances was the direct cause of the injury, then the defendant would he ye negligent in this respect and the jury should answer the first issue yes. If the jury should find from the evidence that the plank that was slided down the embankment was slided down in the usual way and that the defendant furnished the plaintiff a reasonably Safe place So work, a place where he could see what was going on, and furtier exerc‘sed due care and caution in the placing the planks upon the hank and that the plaintiff was injured under condition of affairs, he would not be entitled to recover and jury should answer the firet dieae No, +f the jury find ~ the crentar weight of the evidence that the usual way to put the plank down the embankment was to put them down endways from the top of the ambanknment dcwn to the bottom of the enbanknent, the lower end resting upon the level at the feot of the enbankment, and find that this was a reasonably safe way, and further find that at the time of the injury, if the jury find that the plaintiff was injured, the employees of the defendant and the fellow servants of the plaintiff, had allowed some of the plank to lodzg: upon said embarkyen* and had failed to put them all the way down to the bottom, and find that this was not a reasonably safe method, and find that by reason of this failure, one of the plank lodged upon the said embankment fell upon the plaintiff and injured him, was the direct cause of the injury, then the jury will answer the first issue Yes. If the jury should find from the evidence that the plaintiff with others placed the planks pon the bank and afterwards went below to take the planks to the coffer dam, and the plaintiff while so working at the »ot+o of the bank saw the plank situated upon the bank as thoy were and saw the plank ‘when it began to slip and attempted to get out of the way and could by ordinary care have avoided the injury and the plank caught his foot before he could get out of the way, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover and the ju-y should answer the first issue No, If the jury find that the plaintiff was injured, that at the time of the injury he was at the place where he was ordered to he by his foreman; that he was performing the work which he was order® ed +o perform and that while he was thus engaged a plank fell from said embankment upon the pleintiff and injured him, and that at the time of the injury the plaintiff was exercising ordinary care +hat care which an ordinarily prudent man would exercise under like circumstances for his own safety, then the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence and the jury will answer the second issue No. If the jury find that the plaintiff was injured while he was in 4 his proper position »y a plank falling from said embankment upon him; that said plank was lodged upon said emkArinncnt at a place out of sight of the plaintiff in his position, and that the plaintiff could not reasonavly forcsee that danger of said plank as . falling upon him and that he exercised ordinary care, he would not be guilty of contributory neglizg2n on@ the jury will answer the second issue ..0.- lf tbe jury find that the plaintiff was where he was ordered to be; that a plank was lodged upon sot2 erbankment above him; that plaintiff from his ;¢si*t1ion could not see said plank; that said plank fe11 upon him in said position and injured him; that after + said plank bogan falling, plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary “-—- ao oe aw ed / care could not get out of the way of said plank and prevent its Bante € i - - #4 gstriki nim. then you are instructed that the plainti. ’ . ] guilty of contributory negtigs -c- ar; vi11 answer the second issue No. If the jury should find that the plank upon the benk becane Som lodged and the plaintiff saw it, and neglected to get up the -10- bank ad release the lodged plank, but caught hold of the other plank at the bottom, which caused the lodged plank to slip down upon hin) and he was injured thereby, this would make him guilty of contributory negligence and the jury should answer the second issue Y*é@s. Now gentlemen, as I have stated to you, the burden upon that second issue is upon the defendant to satiscly ou by the greater Weiut of evidency. bua. vie plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence. If the defendant has so satisfied you, you woud answer that issue Yes, if otherwise, No. Tf you answer the first issue Yes and the second issue No, then yuu will proceed to the con- Biderat cou vt the third issue, What damage, if any, is the phaantif? entitled to recover? Well gentlemen, if you find ‘t+ issue yes, and the second issue Zo, in answer to the Hlaintiff? would he entitled to recover a compensation dur Huis sijusye He woulu uvté be entitled to recover anything by the way of punisivicnt I. woula be such sum @s would he a fair compensation for the injury. In passing won what is a fair compensation for the injury you have the right to take into consideration the sufferings of the plaintiff, if you mw did suffer. fou have the right to take into consideration his loss of time, you believe he did lose time, You have the right to take into consideration any permanent injury he has sustained. You have the right to take into consideration his reduced capacity for earning a living. Now the plaintiff - re ‘4 40 luaa lost time. In the first place hé,has suffered great Baye pain. He says that his capacity for earning a living has been impaired. that he has a stiffened ankle; that he lost 17 months when he was able to do very little work, and he says that he is entitled to #200q0 dollars damage. The defendant on the other hand says if you find the plaintiff is entitled to recover anything at all, that he is entitled to recover compensatory damages. He admits that, if he was injurce 48 wLivges That according to the evidence in the case that there was only 33 days he had the attention of a doctor}; that after that time it was not necessary for a doctor to see hin. He argues to you that if his injury ; WwW nr 4 : he Cn ' * . 4 Br as permanent he would lave Un) | Gcctlr uxwuine him more recently and come and tell vou the extent of his injury, and he further says that if the plaintiff is entitled to reccvc: ti.e5 LS ought not +o recover as for a permanent injury, because there is no such evidence of the fact, and if you should come to that issue, taking intc consideration the matters I luve mentioned, remembering that the plaintiff if entitled to recover he would be entitled to recover what you believe upon careful consideration of this evidence he would be ehtitied to recover, what you think fair and reasonable compensation. The issues however, are to he determined and siuould be determined solely upon a fair consideration of the evidence. The jury responded, "Yes" to the first issue: "No" to the socond issue; and to the third issue, "$900.00." The defendant moved to set aside the verdict beeause it wes contrary to the weight of the evidence, Motion denied, Dofandant excepted, 2nd. Exception, The defendant moved for a new trial, assicning as orror in tk ~ ow Court:2& (1) that the Court erred in not non-suitine the »olaintiff &t the close of the evidence; (2) that the Court errod in its charge to the jury; (3) that the Court erred in tiving plaintiff's numbered ; special instructions; (4) that the Court erred in not tivine defendant ‘'s A” spocial instructions ,"umboered RHKSAIBE EX Motion denied, LwXOKNAKLX MEMRAM tox Xt knwx Luwxrexex Lemurs . the Court then signed the followinre judrement: Judgement: North Carol ina 7 In th ; Su ,o0r Lor Court : Iredell County x rovembor Term 1903. y . TID * * > vs. w Judzoenent, Seuthorn Railway Comnany This cause comine on t » heard at this term of the Court before Nis Honor, W., R. Allen, Judge and a jury, and boing heard, and the jury having resnonded to the issuos submitted to thom as (1) Was the laintiff injured by the : tlicenco ef the defendant as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yee, (2) Did the plaintiff contribute to his ow injury as all the answer? ; hd Answer: No, (3) What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled te recevor? newer: $900.00, it is therefore considered and adjudeed by the Court that the plaintiff, E. M. Sigman, recover of tho defendant, Southern Railway Company, tho sum of $900.00 Tine Mundred Dollars. It is further considered and adjudged by the Court that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the costs of this action to be taxed by the Clork of this Court, We. Ry, Ation, Judge Presiding. - Motion by defendant for new trial. Motion everruled. Derena- ant oxcevts and anpeals t® tho Supreme Court Court. “etice of annoal waived, Appeal bend fixed at $25.00. Sixty days after Court allovod defendant to sorve case on anneal, and thirty days thereafter allowed plaintiff t% sorve countor case, The foregoing is tenderad as thg rplaintifr’ appeal to the Supreme Ca Rtas 1 Zz fh /GoF . CO, Cokhinrcte, ~24- down and not leave any on the hill. Plaintiff closes. M@tion for judgment as of non-suit under the Hinsdale Act. Motion overruled and defendant excepts. SOLE Coffiloe ove E. UM. Sigman vs * Southern Railway Company? Special instructions asked by the defendant. First. If the jury should find from the evidence that the plaintiff in this action was injured, this fact alone would not entitle the plaintiff to recover, but he must go further and satisfy the jury by the great- er weight of the evhdence, that the injury, if any, was caused by negligence of the defendant, that is, that the defendant failed to exercise that due care and caution necessary to prevent an‘injury to the plaintiff. The burden of proof is upon the laintiff and upon him devolves the duty of satisfvine the jury to its satisfaction that the plaintiff was not only injured, but that it was negligence done by the defendant Company. Second. If the jury should find from the evidence that the plank that was slided down the embankment was slided dowm in the usual way aiid that the defendant furnished the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work & place where he could see what was going on, and further 48 cxer- cise Yot due care and caution in the placing the planks upon the bank and that the plaintiff was iujureu unaos this Couaivivon of awliaisy he would uot be entitled to recover and the jury should answer the first issue * No". Third. If the jury should find from the evidence that tne plainiiffwith others placed the planks upon the bank and afterwards went below to take the planks to the coffer dam,and the plaintiff , while so work- ing at the botton of the bank, saw the plank suituated upon the bank as they were and saw the plank when it began to slip and aticupted to on Cet hy prin y tert 4 ope tt he «. get out of the way, but sliped and fell, and the plank caught his ay A foot before he could get out of the =? mhe plaintiff would not be entitled to recover and the jury should answer the first issue"No? Fourth Fourth. \| If the jury should find that the plank upon the bank became lodged & and the plaintiff saw it, and neglected to get up the bank and re- lease the lodged plank, but caught hold of the other plank at the bottom, which caused the lodged plank to slip down upon him, and he was injured thereby, this would make him guilty of contributcry neg- ligence and the jury should answer the second issue "Yes". Fifth. If the jury should find that plaintiff saw the plank upon the bank , A. and saw it slip and berin to move some ten or twelve feet above hin, l and he attempted to step c of the waz, but sliped and fell, caus- tre Jed - ing the plank to catch s foot, the jury are instructed to answer the first issue "No" for the reason that this would be an accident, and the defendant would not be responsible for the same as an acci- dent. Sixth. If the jury should find that the work to be performed was obviously +b~e awe dangerous and the plaintiff knew this fact and continued in Dlowrent, then he would not he entitled to recover, because of his assumption of the risk incident to the service. Seventh. From all the evidence in the case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover -« WL, ¢~ Herr E, M, Sigman # vs. € Instructions prayed by Plaintiff. Southern Railway Company # (1) Tho jury are instructod that if they find that the plaintiff Was assigned to work under the direction of defendant's agent and foreman, Burroughs at a place that was not reasonably safe, and further find that the plaintiff was injured by reason of the unsafe condition of the place where he was assigngd to work, the defendant f would be liable, unless the plaintiff contributed to his own injury by the manner in which he did the work which he had beon directed to do, (2) The defendant owos to the plaintiff the dutyto provide for the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work, and to furnish and provide reasonably safo ways and appliances, and if the jury should find by tho greater weight of the e¥idence that the place provided by the defendant for tho plaintiff to work at the time he was injured, if the jury find he was injured, was not a reasonably safe place, or that the ways and appliances furnished and provided were not reason— ably safe, and further find that such failure on the part of defendant to provide such safe placo for the plaintiff to work, or the failure to provice such safe ways and appliances, was thevcouse of the injury, then the defendant would be negligent in this respect and the jury should answerzm the first issue Yos, (3) If the jury find by the greator woight of the evidence that the usual way to put the plank down the embankment was to put them down ondways from the top of tho embankment down to tho bottom of the embankment, the lower end resting upon the level at the foot of the embankment and the other ond resting back against the ombankmoent, and find that this was a reasonably safe way, and further find that at the time of the injury, if the jury find that tho plaintiff was injured, the employees of the defendant and the fellow servants of the plaintiff, had allowed sore of the plank to lodge upon sadd om bankment and had failed to put them all the way down to the bottom, and find that this was not a reasonably safe m&kkunaxx mothod, and ra) (2) | j find that by reason of this failure, one of the plank lodgod upon ge ee BE TE a, the said embankment fell upon the plaintiff and injured nan, then + the jury will answer tho first issue Yos. (4) If the jury find that the plaintiff was injured, and find that shortly prior to tho injury, the defendant's employees, Pope and Howett had put said plank down said ombanikment; that said employees had put some of them down to the bottomof said eribankment, and find that they had allowed other of said plank to lodge upon said embankment only part of the way down to the bottom, and furthor find that while ssid employees were engaged in putting down mimx said p&ank and before they had completed putting them all tho way down to the bottom , the defendant’s foreman, Burroghs ordered the said Popfand Hewitt to quit tho work of putting down said plank and go to another place to work, and that in obedience to sand order, said Pope and Hewitt left said plank lodged upon said embanigment, only part of the way down to the bottom, and find that thus leaving said plank in such position was unsare ana aangerous, and further find that one of said plank thus lodged upon said embankment fell upon the plaintiff and injured him, then the defendant would be negligent in this respect, and theo jury should aauswer the first issue ‘os, (5) If the jury find by 4 greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff was subject to the orders of defendant's foreman, Burroughs, and find that at the time of the injury, if the jury find that tho plaintiff was injured, said foroman ordered the plaintiff to work at the foot of said embankment, and that the plaintiff, in obedience to said order, was ongaged at work at the foot of said embankment, and further find that a plank was lodgod upon said embankmont, out of sight of the plaintiff, but that said Burroughs from his position could see said plank lodged upon said embankment at the time he ordered the plaintiff to work at the foot of said embankment, and further find that said plank fell upon the plaintiff in this position and injured him, then this would be negligence on the part of the defendant and the jury will answer the first issue Yos, (3) (6) If the jury find that the »laintiff was injured; that at the time of the injury he was at tho placo where ho was ordered to be by his foreman; that he was performing the work which he was ordorod to perform, and that while he was thus ongaged atplank feel from said embankment upon the plaintiff and injured him, and that at the time of the injury the plaintiff was exercising ordinary care— that care which an ordinarily prudent man would exercise under like circumstancos for his own safety, thon the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence and the jury will answer the second issue No, (7) If tho jury find that the plaintiff was injurod while he was in his proper position by a plank falling from said ombankment upon hin; that said plank was lodged upon said embanikaent at a placo out of sich of the plaintiff in his position, and that the plaintiff could not reasonably forosee that dangor of said plank falling upon him and thet ho oxercised ordinary care, he would not bo guilty of contributory 77 negligence and the jury will answer the socond issue No, (8) If the jury find that plaintiff was whore he was ordered to bes that a plank was lodged upon said smbankmont above him; that plaine tiff, from his position could not seo said plank; that said plank fell upon him in said position and injured him; that after said plank began falling, plaintiff, by tho exercise @f ordinary care could not get out of the way of said plank and provent its striking hin, then you are instructod that tho plaintiff id not guilty of contributory , °T neclisonce and you will answer the second issue No, yrs Civil Subpena—For sale at The Mascot Job Office, Statesville, N. C. a ORTH CAROLINA. nih Court to be held for our said, County at the i — : 4 oh ere eer co Te, © “8 eee 9 after teed SGuastiihe apcdedsnhde Mopday in Le Pic csdinagteut™ CLE. 2, the truth to say in behalf of WAR in a certain oo A Co depending, and then and there to be tried Whergil....o4.seeereeeepersreeennennens ae Plaintiff d North. Carolina # In the Superior Court, November Torm 1903, vs. # Company iz— Tredell\ County # E. M. Sigman Issues, Southern Railway (1) Was tho plaintiff injurod by ‘the nesligenco of as alleged in the complaint? F Answert- 1 Dr (2). Did the plaintiff contribute to his own injury 4% Sp VaeV in answer? No Answert— - we , 4 ad +4 tf any, Ie the eALt SNtitice Answer:-— ‘ st bD oo (3) What damnaco ole ty as allered ¢ ‘>, ,O recover? or wae, ad ee ae tit Gs Alii a wD a Salimtele Te UETyNos 7 ABATT BY 7+ uyaiu0% r 4s "* om : : r ‘ Civil Subpoena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMark Jos Orrice, Statesville, N.C. wi ee Or Seiden ee To THE SHERIFF OF Wou ate Hereby Commanded to Summon Ssveinalty to appear before the Judge of Superior Court, at mn next Court to be hela jor our said county at the Court House in sae beh (pig tes Po onthe . he Whearrebey atte tne next, then and there to testify andl the truth to say in bebalf of . in a certain 2 said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein Plaintiff Defendent , ‘Ana this you shall in no a. penalty prescribed by law. Witness Lr00; , Clerk of our said Court, at office in ye Monday after the Morday—tn— AL Satie Clerk Siperior Court for (fe Le County. SUBPENA-—-Givil Baden La Ze tay. Lb LEO? Civil Subpeena—For sale at The Mascot Job Office, Statesville, N. C. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. To the Sheriff of __County—Greeting : personally to appear Court House in the truth to say in behalf of ina ee eae said irt depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein 7 \ ’ > <- Plaintiff Clerk Superior Court of Iredell County. euadqng TA) “ey. ~-.- Civil Subpoena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMark Jon Orri"E, Statesville, N.C. TATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Sle Court, at the next Court to be beld for our said county at the Court House in... “~~ ' caterer! FET OEE NG on the Ou om after the onday in. next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of LB. pa _ ZF in a certain cont sy re said Court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein , Plaintiff ., and ee /t, S Ge . ; wae we ; e = Defendent....... And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness , Clerk of our said Court, at office in Wo (7 Monday after the Monday in V $ {lb SA le , Biles = as ™ 3 4 é ~ fyuivrg 43 ON Civil Subpoena.—Printed and for sale at the LanpMaex Jon Orri 8, Statesville, N.C. TATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, To THE SHERIFF OF.<_4. aT... NTY---GREETI personally to appear before the e next Coyrt to be held for our said county at the Court House in.. i on the ee ee oe oe in next, then and there to testify and the truth to say in bebalf of in a certain conigéversy before said Court depgnding, and then and there to be tried, wherein Plaintiff , and Defendent . And this you shall in no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Witness , Clerk of our said Court, at office in ter: /7 S903. Monday after the Monday in Clerk Superior Court for Ch Uhh County. 2 A -wnaaiis 7 ae jsuivs py ~~ fuuiid North Carolina # In the Superior Court, Iredell County # November Torm 1903, Be M. Sigman + vs, a Judgment, Southorn Railway Company # This cause coming on to bo heard at this Term of the Court before His Honor, W. R. Allen, Judge and a jury, and being heard, and the jury having responed to the issues submitted to them as Pollows— 1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint? Answer:— Yos, 8. Did the plaintiff contribute to his own injury 4s alleged in the answer? Answer:— No, 3, What damage, if any, is the plain®iff entitled to recover? Answer:= $900.00. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the plaintiff, E. M. Sigman recover of tho defendant, Southern Rail- way Company, tho sum of ino Hundred ($900.00) Dollars, It is further considerod and adjudced by the Court that the plaintiff recovor of the defendant the costs of this action to be taxed by- the Clerk of this Court, yt Mee Judge Presiding, wh ota Ae a baalern ~ ” ‘ : A ‘ $ . Fy ‘> C2 . 3 3 + a =~ * “ . : si j . ; ~ 7 : | » ‘] t < i + ‘ 4 ; = 7 ~ ~ os a4 ; ~ , Ae in gi Bt te rf “ra eae Ee ee eee (Lo igen ey i ak “Not Wu oS i Me wi Pr a Onn Bx CHhicrws ea rs i gee borne. eee ee, | &. A , es gd Mee beorey UR: Gu J And Lacy treet, Ad i qr 4. Penta te Eb Adds Meri Je hc. jo Koki auc—e,' (ez M)-10 ok brand 44 me 4 a. TG A - ag abhigur dev Tht, v A j Saplitctcect™ HA AA ip - se - LB he car O0:00 | es aie I~ we | _ ike. a he aa se | Ths Petia: Sets Te buts te fice Aurwaete Pate doy bir, for or Mew pe lad ath T Ay Ure b opp eee Ki Apa / pr! ECxery~ Yatra Offa cog At [efenmin wt at pes; oo. Lees Of dimer | wrt LU ALNL Cuan Chatne a free e+! Astor Hato Then, 2 A Cue coe 4 4. hA— thea, = OF | Ro ip Rami tna Ika Al H ALups Cpr} oF beg Parent. PALS iii Birtctnilgs | Lemy AX ip Cig et4 7 af JV Ae ££. hn Cmte | Ah G OW hy han ApT AAs. frat Vb Pedant etistennie eekly ts il fe | tl . i } b { ay j r mT LE erento ‘ eb hinpane er tones | AMO — CLeaut gic_cr Pi tbe ob Aw re He Allele | A hrs—eea dinate deg S— otha 7 / m JUDGMENT. Fhis cause came on to be argued upon the transcript of the record from the Superior Court of ign Weal ‘ _...-...... County:—upon consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion that there is... VA___error in the record and proceedings of said Superior Court. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court here, that the opinion of the Court, as delivered by NYyller that thn the Honorable 4h MAA Le UNE _.Justice, be certified to the said ; - / : . / Superior Court, to the intent that the farkfiudael id hnnnwee J / , * And it is considered and adjadged farther, that the Mutha Ann dined Jd a the costs of the appeal in this court incurred, Mf te dollars (3... tale to-wit, the sum of and execution issue therefor. A True Copy: Clerk of the Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA; Feb. term, 1904, 4863, Iredell. BE, M, Sigman -v- Southern Railway Co., appellant. L. C. Caldwell for appellant; Furches, Coble & Nic ai sen and R. B, MeLaughlin for appellee, Glark, &. Jd. No index was sent up in the record and printed nor any mar- ginal references as required by Rules 19 (2), 19 (8) and 28. As provided by Rule 20 it was therefore optional with the court to dismiss the action or to postpone its consideration and in the meantime to refer the record to the clerk "to put the record in the prescribed shape” with an allowance to him of five dollars therefor, and an order that execution issue forth- with for that amount and for the cost of printing the additional natter. The court in this case chose the latter alternative, But these rules are required for the prompt consideration of the uupendquevaigumest business coming up to this court and if they are not carefully complied with it will become necessary hereafter to dismiss in cases of their non-observance, The fullest notice to this effect has heretofore been given. Alexander v, Alexander, 120N, C, 474; Lucas v. Railroad, 12] N. C. 508; Pretzfelder v, Insurance Co,, 128 N. C, 168; Baker v, Hobgood, 126 N, C, 168 and Brinkley v. Smith, 180 N, C. 226, in which last attention is called to the fact that these requirements mst be observed even in pauper appeals except only the requirement as to printing. The record is also defective in not containing the marginal references required by Rule 21, nor are the exceptions "briefly and clearly stated “ppruaied t Crba har SS" Ook alee and numbered” in the case on appeal as by Rule 27, This is imper- ative and the attention of the profession is called to this requirement as to stating the exceptions in the case on appeal. he would not have been made if experience had not. demonstrated that his provision was necessary for the prompt and orderly dispatch of the business coming before us, On the other hand, some records infringe upon Rule 22 by send- ing up “irrelevant matter not needed to explain the exceptions or errors assigned". Burham v, Railroad, 108 N. C, 899; Mining Co, v, Smelting Co, ‘119 N, C, 416; Hancock v, Railroad, 124 N. C, 228, As for instance, in some cases the transcript in incumbered with pages of entries of continu- meee from term to term and other proceedings at terms prior to the trial 4 ¥ + Sake te s term, which are often sent up, when they throw no possible light upon the | exceptions assigned. ‘The appellate court does not need a complete history of the cause but only enough of the record to show that the case is proper _ ly constituted, and the summons, pleadings, verdict and judgment (which ar the "record proper”) and the case on appeal (which should set out so much of the proceedings at the trial as will] throw light upon the exceptions taken). The above when properly indexed with margimal references, and printed, will present to the court all that is necessary for the proper . consideration of an appeal. More than this is an unnecessary expense to the appellant and a hindgrance rather than a help to the court, while less than the above moderate requirements is just ground for dismissal or other appropriate action. It is the duty of the appellant to see to it that the requirements as to the appeal are complied with, Cases cited, Clark's Code (8 Ed.) p. 921. The record in this appeal having been put in shape by the clerk to whom the transcript was referred and the additional matter printed, the excep- tions have now been fully considered, fhe first exception, that the court erred in not non-suiting the plaintiff at the close of the evidence is without merit, The second exception is that “the court erred in its charg to the jury." This is "broadside”® and cannot be considered, see numerous cases collected in Clark's Code (8 Ed.) pp. 518, 614, 778, 981, Neither the appellee nor the court can be thus called on to grope through the @m- tire charge when the appellant does not specifically point out by an excep- tion wherein he has been hurt by an error therein, It admits of some sur- prise that an exception in such terms should still appear in any case sent to this court, The other exceptions are to giving special instructions asked by the plaintiff and for refusing certain instructions asked by the defendant and for modification of the defendant's third prayer, Upon careful consider— ation of these matters we find no error therein and nothing requiring dis- cussion in this opinion, as the propositions of law involved have been well settled by numerous decisions which the Judge below carefull y followed The plaint Bier tent Kit © plaintiff was i ilé Working upon and repairing a bridge of +e ci ™ =n, the defendant railroad, It is settled that the fellow servant law, chap- ter 56 Private Laws 1897, applies to railroad employees injured in the course of their service or employment with such corporation, whether they are running trains or rendering any other service, In Mott v. Railroad 181 NW. C. at p. 287 it is said "The language of the statute is both compre- hensive and explicit. It embraces injuries sustained (in the words of the _ statute) by ‘any servant or employee of any railroad company.....in the course of his Services or employment with said company’. The plaintiff was an employee and was injured in the course of his oon employment? To same effect, Railroad v. Pontius, 157 U. S, 209; Tully v. Railroad, 175 | RAV Maw 53 Kans U6; U. S. 862 4 Railroad v. Kochler, 87 Kan, 468; Railroad v, Stahley, 62 Fed, | Rep. 363; Saeco Pret aCeweOP and many other cases, WO ERROR, A f EE BILL OF COSTS.—CIVIL.—Privted aie for sale at The Landmark Job Office, Statesville. N.C. 2-1-’"96-1m. ——— Original Summons, or o ri 1 including all names thee ERE HOB! gad acti cbaar MES BN OO TAR OE RUNG ooo ci ch ca assun ccc cncdccobecavekee aoanccaccoeesouetk Ghaces .25 Bond, including Justification .............c.ccccc. ccccsesseesceseveensee ce nae: ae is > RGR? Sg Sa DSIRE AEDES, SSE Ae 50 Akocbr ther, Pra GA, sores: csccssvntnsinwvinescssssine 50 Order for enlarging time of pleading .........0.... sccceccsseeceesesensseees -25 RCM TEY TAPING sess cc cinvaseciepcins <ddenes sichbodaweae: dokadibokebuaaeabors -25 PEATE, CPG OE Ishin ch as en coven isle basebedephibihdedadcensipes eetebe Injunction Order, including Bond and Justification AOR ME MING inseeiibicnsncis dosnecais Pausicpagaiatee Su bpeena, each name lea of ai } Judgment Against o ; me — we 1,99 ~ oo | ee. sais S ) YY a?) | County Tax, when Jury impaneled Caveat to a Will, entering and docketing............... ..s0....0+ bata RIG, COR EIIIION ool icin ccscnctacacdepnascodee Inasececbebencedhehucachohaiels -75 Affidavit, including Jurat and Certificate .. ..... | ......:ccc00 cesses .25 RS sagodede oubtch gdlighnssccocsauietl J y sdanbapbieakinses edie: Gubbesbansn -25 Motion, Entry and Record of..... an 2a... -25 PBEM imsnsthocoedganak dgmiessiddennienpicenhlidaes sais shecsatlsnt wht Soak Ghats -25 ) Notice, for each name over one in same paper................c.0seeeeee 10 P TUR GOOG, SEF a cseotnivesicseyicoascunsatonier v-sdenasen vd sotnbbcnde: poaksh bests 10 Justification of Sureties, except as otherwise provided............. 50 See GO We BIRT CIID. site ciec chicas ehecskabsosdmbactcks Seen 1.00 Judgment final before Clerk..............ccc0...- + dinddigadiniianetediliaand: Bonide .50 Judgment in favor of Widow's Year’s Support......... ... ... ...... 50 1} Docketing QAmR0...... ...0......crcrecscsssecnssose + voensesorseeseaee sevesiecnserenstce -25 Docketing ex parte Proceedings .... ..... ....cc.ccece sccssseeseesesevereeees 50 . Judgment Summons | SE Oe ecinetecedapeesecccarseeteceiith ‘aioe Filing Paperes.... vesees Transcript of Judgment Brasstown fp | | Appeal to Supreme Court, including Certificate and Seal..... 2.00 Transcript to Supreme Court ZA opy sheets, each... .......... -10 Referee’s Allowance. Magistrate .... } || Plaintiff's Witnesses....< L.A)... Ptrd RS WRI a crccscisiniiptinineceviatiapbiacnscla-cuniatiiiiieeniiinatic tidied senwweenes a] eeeeee coeee a] seeensenceee teeeeees eeeeeneweees ee eeewes seeeerceeee Leenweeene seereeeee oases Oe eeeeens | aeceeeee Clerk, *t ' 68T “use jsuspa py - (“9P0D 241 44 paxy Sy ) 7201)-S}S0 fog | i ‘LANIOWd TAID . “ON Railroad Records 1904 SPRL Ne tne iaaciatads petite thie North carolina, Iredell county. ~ Je Ae Ingram, va Complaint, Southern galiwe;’ company. The plaintiff complaining alleges; 3 > » Py) _* in a+ ' Ag y + 2 / , ~ ’ - ‘ > + 4 . ~ ~ 4 First. hat the defen 6 25 AOW, 2NG Was ae Ulie Lime mereln= after alleged, «= corporation ereatea ana organized under tne Laws of the state of yirginia, end doing business 4s a common carrier of freight and passengers for hire in the -tate of ,,orth carolina, and 6wns and operates a certain lins of railroad from tne Town ol Salisbury, N. C., West by way of Statesville, Pictts, qatawbe end a oe . “rr + +awarn 4 vu i ~~ - + otner BSvarcid ao Test toward ABSLOCVALLS y ‘Ne vey ALLA OW iio its track, road bed, bridges, culverts, station houses, &c., along said road. Second, That the plaintitf 3 ’ 1as been for a long tias, he owner and seized and possessed of the lands lying on the north 6146 of sald defendant's road bed at a ooint near plotte Station on gaid road and extending along tne said road bec of tne defendant, *hat Lnes plaint iff, S inc 2 iv ao J337) wLbe IW 38ST Jo ~liS oc id iaNG, nas had th Se 14 Occupation of the sam, id nas cultivated and enjoyed the products of the same, that ring i@ year 1902, and at the tim lereinafter Li359da, Lne plal itiff nad growl ig On 68410 land a crop of corn ana pe4aé6,; at said land is fertile ena proaduct=- 3 hak bh S on ep oO ‘w ” Ff awn ,? r : ana had en it in the vear 1902 2. fine crop of corn ana peas. mm : fT». Se o he ne + a: : rhird. [That auring the month of ~----------------, in the year ; » 2 w a . er ay — ~ < ‘ 1902, the defendant, by ueans of its agents, servants 4nd employees, without notice to the plaintiff ond without iicense of the plain- 74% - tiff, went upon the said land of tne plaintiff ana cur ana excavated ea large ditch or canal upon the land of the plaintiff, the seic cana A et wide, throwing the dirt from Auge Seed tne,pleintiff, which canal 22a wn de cr being about 500 feet long and 2K ft >) wil the eaid canal out upon through the perttesn—ci_tile—set+ fertile, land of the plaintiff througi which now flow the waters of ao small ¢ereask, whichMieretofore flowed On the South side of said road and not on the land of the plaintiff but which now flow through ana over the land of tne plaintiff by * tz oe.8 acai Se reason Of the act of the isfeudant in turning its naturel course as aforesaid; that after saia cresk traverses the land of the plaintiff through the said canal cut by the defendant for 4 distance of about 600 fest paralel to said road, the same is then turned back by said defendant under its road bed to the South side -f said road into ite natural and original channel; that in preparing to cut and excavate the eald canal the defendant, in disregard of the plaintiff's rights, and without notice to or license of ths plaintiff, did unlaw fully sever and remove from the said land tne growing crop of corn and peas Of the plaintiff before the same hac Treachec the stare of maturity; that during the progress and continuation of said work of cutting and excavating the said cansl the aefendant erected and oper ated for its own purposes by means of horses vpon the said iand of . the piaintiff, at a point near to and on the orth of said canal a certain @errick, which was used and operated by said defendant in “+s lifting and removing dirt from said canal; that in the erection anc operation of said derrick, the defendant ph ae a te eet «abel tramped the land of the plaintiff with horses, used 46 power to operate said derrick; tnat the erection anda operation of said derrick =. 2 destrusetlon—of—setd-oeepe Was done witnout notice to or license of the plaintiff in disregard of his rights and the duty — wo ~ the defendant owed nim and unlawfully to the great damage of the plaintiff and without any compensation therefor, that the adsfondant fn @isregard of tho plaintiff's rights end of the duty he owed the plaintiff without notice to or license of tne plaintiff turned tne course of aald creek out of its natural and original channel from the South side of its said road under ite road to the -orth side into ean@ ‘upon the land of the piaintiff aforesaid; that this was unnec- ct essary and unreasonable snd not required for the necessary purposes of the defendant and the proper and reasonable use of its said pro- perty, road and road bed; thst the said act of cutting the said can nel and turning the course of said creek upon the lana of ‘the plain- tiff ase aforesaid was an unnecessary and unreasonable use of defend- -2- 7 _peenr , nae Of 2at—xXt gO ape . . pn ed <<fO<-> ~—-fS oe i wee 7h e Bee tte 6C 2c Pup f “2 tthe GA<0or- Tae £ SF pet bof K , 7 y 4 . | Lez , a. ~_ <<< a LL oti aed Ashe oil jee L£ Cex G2 fru11 lo 7 Br Lh a+, <A_ : , ¢ Jfwe a Acok Z 4 cy o ns ee hak <1 fo Ore | co | . ' hac aper the Ca<t«< Of pa flO 2G ‘ ee ke Po aan Aen tonHt Chery “i AA pe al wae ae 7 ere 3 AL, on t.t>~@ as Zz s uz ae ae so < ea “ as re ; . es a ee ft ’ GEL ot : ft fe Lom ‘ Ac1< ck Xe . A@_f_-D,, wr gle % i j xi Jo tides. te — te foe i see PIA A Lowy Ca Jeo CEA fm Lez Ai fic taute Aowd£ a LD tea 5? et. __.g—pt..- gC. @_4__. Cet Rina oY Jf te JOA ZG. ; Bey i 2 a ant's own property and in disregard of the rights of the plaintiff and tne duty the defendant owed him, which has operated and will com , Shee to operate to the great damage of tne plaintiff. \ : That by reason Of the severing and removing of the ¥} corn and peas as aforesaid before they were matured the plaintiff ha | .eutrered the practical loss of the same; that by the erection anc aid derrick upon the land of the plaintiff and ® operation of the injury to said land by the tramping of horses used in operating } a - ~ 4 -~ soe 7 as ; . . lh ,* + Sn Aaa yecr . the same the plaintiff nas suffered to ths extent of tne injur; = ~ ~ > Wwe ~~ in 4 —~”r * +h a+ Wer . sy #4 Y - oe 7 ~ gdone thereby to his land; that by the cutting and excavating OL ai ee ian: a tha asani arf s @irt taken therefro: " ea, B21icQ Canes : A vil AS ap ing +» ¥liiS asru sai SIL nereirom AD On vne 14ana a a of the @ plaintiff; which practically destroys a large portion o ~ 2 ee —w —~s 5 fy, A 4 oF : ~ + ‘ 2 ee sy : 2 plaintiff S land Causing war VAich was left after Cucrclingsg tne salad a ~ a " bi,» “~ tn.+ if Ff } . 5A > = LPL o oa _~ : } Cc ar ial Vv Wesn, wills ya ah2liveis Lice Ocen Maaedc vv SUuLier ¢ onsidgerable + . ‘ + 1 <p -. w 4 17 4 ra] -f£ A . — sa + ££ ; ss ita 4V5O,5 Vite OY LATE INS .ne course OL said creek Out Of ita reguier ~ ‘str ++4 sa 4 : . chaeannel upon the land of i@ plaintiff, the cutting of said canal, Pg Sie: - An 4 i . — ° - : : a fee ? os — > ond ann T-tin- which ths Eanes “was Dut, ail 95 which Wae unnec- i ~“< > + ~ 4 - essar id unreasonable for 8 p Osea Of ie defendant and no © . required fo proper and necessary use of its said propert he e . Lh ‘ . . - a ~ Ft > ~ <= ' Dlaintifs ia BsULILeCerea absol AL? logs + 42 CoUns.agl VY 4Oo t vaon Vs nis a . om A - m iana, >A o > 4ffere STre at * J Urs as MA a“, 9 c at Ved is 41406 » q ~ , P ,& Jyacent 0 381¢C Canali, ~\ ” reas } nh ga - . rs eG’ 1c Vo I iw Lt - - » 4 rr . 4 . Gefenda the pleintiff has o8en ¢g -ly damased in un of rive _ = 2 r - Uundred Dollars: . ‘sf " ieref Ds v i? > 4 nint iff 49 ind 7AGS lk it: m - 7S on orn Pf wale Pr owke af — Aaw First. F the swa of FPive Yundred poliar LaAmaAge. » Pu . . . +. ne . ‘ . y ~ } . as 3 a 4 os oe Le fecond. Por the costs of lis action to be taxed bd: 1i@ clerk of thie Court. amu 7 ey - = «py “ 4 ny C Sw ‘ J A. hot al veins 2 VOrN, oocye that t i? 4 ecoing ‘ ADP lain‘ a» * true to his knowledge, except as *o those matters therein alleged upon information and belief, and as to ths ; se he believes it to be = a bar gaec2 KOKE, Sworn to and subscribed before me this fae --- of June, 19035. Ce ee Guiles Recteng_ fous