Show ii OrE nJi t l i t t HEW TRIAL ORDERED I r I i tl tt Jj Cise of Thompson Torsos the South v if 11 eon Faclflc Co IIEUXIIIOS Or lllb n 0llll CUSTOM 1 I d I j f A j Conclusion bract din a Itooily Iiiinu r j Inibl inOilisr lonit Jlatttri q P Sole 5 j I The Bupreme Court handed down 1 y 1 K an opinion today In the case ol Alfred < i i 11 Ne SOD ana mlnlstrator of the en 1 j I J i tate of Charles A Neleon deceased respondent vs the Bsuthorii Paciflo j Hallway company appellant revolt log the case and remanding the oau in M bsck to the lower court with dlrecllo > I to grant a new trial the opinion IB I delivered by ° Justice MoOch nod concurred In by Chief i Justice Mine and District J udge Ogdeu r f M j HireS I I Hire-S t s This case IB ou appeal from Ib judgment of the lower court and from 1 r It concur cvrrrullor a motion fore new trial bolo s the Bupreme court has al 1 reedy decided that no appeal eon be bad no no order overruling a motion k f rll u wort trial the appeal Idm the a 0 h < K 1 judgment only Is I whit the court rot f > t 4 I nudru nod pistes upon J F Pllntlfl tomtit acllon lor 50OH i domacei against tile railroad uom i 1 pony toe the death of tote brother 1 H I who no alleged I woe killed In January 1 1602 hi Tlucktf Callloriiln Ihruugn t bong attuck I 110cr eu lead by a snowS snow-S thou ortiIe lien no top oaf On cur r causIng hint to fail hetweeo the cure 7 d I nr cod ouetiog htm t do nih Doonsel I was In the sheep bUilD nut was taking aloud ol u oplrom NuvaJa lo 1 Csliforula I tno custom Woe to allow 1 t elton la charge of the anuep lo rideS l IJ i I i a csboosi In order to look alter S them 1 and prevent lujurj I J Deceasiu i 5 odUl an estate In Ojutiu aad bin I 4 i i brother woe duly uppointnd udmlnls I 0 4 S train of I the t tame fuedelinJant In answering denies i gp that tteccepird dec need eapoace gee ou the train between the points S named and nirgea that aleOaIreeJ oimo to his death by leavinr the i 5 i caboose aDd recklcly coot DOlllliotly placing himself In position of iiuiil lent well known ilaoger At the trial thr jury j found for the I llalntlU lu the t tuu ul I 10000 but tile 1 court salt I Itjwould nolniaut the motlou t J os I 1r new trial unless u remlltur Was of e filed nhlco would reduce the amount l fl l I ul damages lo 15010 PlalntiU filed the rtlulllur as sugiteted whereupon I t the court ordered judgment 1QOOJ it 31 t f I catered oDd onrrulod the moUoo lor a 1 < new trill Irani whlob deleadaut up I r f 1 pealed t < In reviewing cBeJutUcc Bartch 1 cilia atteutlun lo the argument tar counsel fir appellant who claimed that certain facts were established by a u repoderuc 01 evIdence clodS j I clod-S eaj However this may te It Is buo i 0 fir UB to reply that we boy no power 5 I l1 1 to determine I whether the pioponder IvrJ Ci once ebb evidence Is wlili I the appellant f 0 appel-lant or the respondent becllon 9 aOl j j tie Bottle Constitution provUit In S I j r oases at law the appeal suuli le upon qumtUnsol law alone e 1C therefore I utelelB to ttcuuibei Ibo record wltb any evUenor lu suck B case wblcb Is I not necessary lo the determination of the questions of law trese I toted bcoiute It ibere la any evl ° i Utiice weBbould nave tocustaln I the < j 11jl ujumeni we ar lowrrlnwi In deter mine whether suon ovldenoa in pouJerate or whether u dtr all the evldeuciwe would render the came uJuroeni and If not theu subitltute urjudgmant that of lh Jury lee I court charge ti I the Jury which wa ixceiitoJ to by osuoul Inc i be appellant Is I then taken up Tiai part specifically objected by faa a I plInl IB I the portion wb rein he word ° custom Is I diOrm hia jury were told that custiim or usBit LUll be ia certalb cc tin I unlnets 10 which Ibe rule apple wllIl pirralt1 O I to l seIne Justice I lolisavt A culoin doer not doponil upon wbelher Ibo bulnoa In I wblch U 1 < clulmed to coast t Mill larlnU h l cxiu role TOo qa001lnu 1 In don u actually V d IN T tail ousebi inioej ecu fart In nddlllou lo bolnn cerium the CUB 10m oruengehonet be uniform raon able ood liD coulrryo w IMr ore Iou comparative degrotii a < to taboo alnlj era 011001 It h olthor cwltulti or 11 H no and the chug of tho court lualLTylug tliU elomoal Ii errouuous and In Old cane the error la I uiaioilul bocauHo the porlluu Of be paragraph in wliloh li I OOCUFM relatoa 10 the precutdlng porllunt ut Ibo I mow larauritph mo-w Ibo > uurt In nub lancu told Ibo jury that If they believed from Ihe evidence that Ibo duuwiod without expoiilug hlnnelf to any danger could have remained In Ihe ahiep can mull the train topped and then could lave walked lo lou cabooao but Inatoad of an doing rarolotely and tocklosly In bo faco of known dauiror ultompted to eturu 0 Ibo cnl00ae ever the lOp of the cr while plug Ibrougb the uOv hI lu a Iorm 0 evro o Iu lax all his eoerotio 10 maintain hit fooling If such ilmatlo condition eiluod then the ilalntltt could not noorer oniocv lion jury forltoor bcllotnl I from the evidenco taot lion a oo000 among otaOotameo inr < uw to Mo I defendant 1 and mqiiloacoj Inky II anne prior to the tlmo and 1 aloe icar hOe place of Injury I to walk nero > a bo top r toe cara while In I motion In thor word the Jury wore Instructed that tire plaltillir wa not burt from are overy unleaa the diceaaod careleaily or ecUIuuly In the loon of known danger mlor tile conditions I do > crlb d returned 10 Ibo cobeo oval Ibo lop of the car Under auoh a rule ho defendant In order lo avoid liability lu Hill catowould boon the burden of nhowlng Jllllo IOM hail a wanton dlareiird ou the part of Iho dccmiaed 01 lilaovn life nod rafey Much la I not too law It la I apprehended hat If the deceased even inoautloualy without Iho exercise of ordinary caro and Irnduco or oootooutnatof tero reollble care and forealght would IlOder ilmllar olrcuuiitaucea eierclo dlI an act which one tho proximate co ul hlsdeatbhlt legal repruseutatlve will not bo entitled ton ncoiory tbo question h not aa to ho degron of lenllg nco on tho pare 1 of the deceased but whether lie waa guilty of any negligence negli-gence which ciuied oroontrlbu ed lo the Injury Norinfttieocsvnrytobnr I a recovery re-covery that Ibo act of negligence should mvo bou comJilttoil lu the lace ot known or apparent da ignr It la I lufll clent If the deceased waa guilty of any negligence which wai the proxiuiaie cause ot the Inlury although at the line Iho real danger of Iho act woe not apparent or known to him luatlhecliarguof the court reaped log custom and aonlrlbatory uegllgonco wo orronou nod DIleodlug 10 the jury Ic I obvlolls Juitlco lunch also > yi that hero are portions oIMm ooun4 charge with rnfio lo contributory negligence which are not Invulnerable 10 scrutiny scruti-ny toots they were not eoco pied ti Inn o nfl cannot consider them Higardlng the contended error of the court elhjwlcg certain questions lo be aitwerud by a witness al the trial the couit sajs It should have been eliminated I |