102 F. 720 (N.D.Ga. 1900), 1,496, Edwards v. Southern Ry. Co.

Docket Nº:1,496.
Citation:102 F. 720
Party Name:EDWARDS v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
Case Date:June 12, 1900
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 720

102 F. 720 (N.D.Ga. 1900)

EDWARDS

v.

SOUTHERN RY. CO.

No. 1,496.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Georgia.

June 12, 1900

Hoke Smith and H. C. Peeples, for plaintiff.

Dorsey, Brewster & Howell and Sanders McDaniel, for defendant.

Page 721

NEWMAN, District Judge.

The motion for new trial in this case, so far as the same has been urged in argument, is upon two grounds. The first is that the court failed to give a written request of the defendant. The failure to give this request was a pure inadvertence, as the defendant was undoubtedly entitled to it, and the presiding judge had it on the desk before him, with the intention of reading it. The omission to do so was not intentional. No exception, however, was taken by counsel for the defendant to the failure of the court to give this request. It would be a question for consideration as to whether the failure to give this request should be considered on a motion for new trial, notwithstanding there was no exception by defendant's counsel, if it was believed that it had, or could have had, any material effect in causing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. It could hardly have had such effect. It seems clear that there would have been a verdict against the defendant even if this request had been given. Consequently the failure to give it is not sufficient ground for the granting of a new trial, even if it is proper to consider it under the circumstances.

The next ground of the motion is that the verdict is excessive. The suit by the plaintiff is for the homicide of her husband. Under the statutes of Georgia, she is entitled to recover the full value of the life of the deceased. According to the mortality and annuity tables in evidence, and which have been principally used in arguing this motion for a new trial, this was a full verdict, unquestionably. There was evidence, however, that the deceased had earned as high as $90 and $100 per month some time before his death. At the time of his death he was not earning this much. He had accepted a subordinate position, as...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP