xt73bk16mf8w_348 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/51w14.dao.xml unknown 35 Cubic Feet 77 boxes archival material 51w14 English University of Kentucky Copyright has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and Lexington and Eastern Railway Company records Railroads -- Appalachian Region -- History. Railroads -- Kentucky -- History. [268b] M.C. Fields v. L&E, etc. Letcher Circuit Court text [268b] M.C. Fields v. L&E, etc. Letcher Circuit Court 2016 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/51w14/Box_34/Folder_12/1217.pdf section false xt73bk16mf8w_348 xt73bk16mf8w 7 \ ,
'/ '7 V ~ / ' /
)117/77%flg ”M/ ///////// “.. /////////// fry/”Hy /
‘ K _2’7' 7 7;. 1 ‘ Z
%n%///% {%Zm _fl}///./////////////// (gm-WM, (9i;
/ 6(1/ 'W

 gab/MWE
‘y .//////I//// ”2’ xxx, p _//_,//.l ,.2/7/1/722/2’7m/
//
’/’42 / 77‘ 2
,Y/pl/H'V ‘/._ ///1///,A /7 , zé/é?/ll/ . // ///’/////‘//
;” -¢*"II"””"I~I‘ ~r «2' (511‘ , , - /;,)?¢”ax .ryéhrzzkréézzzz9f
,r//x,,;/, [,’72’27/227/72.) -%///I~ Jtrfl/llZw/jflflW/fl ’ '1’ ” ,,,,,,,,A,‘,,.,,F,.,,,,,,.,,,1,.,_
fell/"1W.::’/WW r 043%” (XI/f Wily/(W
I v I i. 2 ' «4.5251.(bl/IIIIPITI‘.VINO/WP.“
”(l/[l (I/(/‘ // égI/(‘llgl/é/HII/‘Illfli
/ ;;/ . .237 I7 . ,,
(1&fllg/7/t/éf54y,’ April 22 , 1910.
(
Mr. S. M. Wilson, ,»*“15 A
( ‘ , / a
General Counsel, L.& E. R'y., Z ”7‘ .~‘”""'fi ‘ ‘
, v , ,. , pu/“fi/Ilv/I ‘
Lex1ngton, ny. ;"€1I V a, ? ¢_‘
Dear Sir: ‘ \7,‘ 7 -
Referring to the case of M.C.Fields vs. L.& E.Ry. et al, in
which case there was a verdict for $4,000 for injury to the plaintiff's
eye, but the judgment thereon was recently reversed by the Court of
Appeals, I beg to advise that I have a letter from Horton & Parker,
Appalachia, Va. who represented the Insurance Company that had insured
the Doggett—Daughty 00., advising that they had been instructed by
their client to take no further part in the trial of this case. ,
It will be necessary, therefore, for the case to be prepared
and tried Without further assistance from them.
I assume from the general statement of Mr. Fields that this case
has been continued but, if so, you can note this information for
future reference.
Yours very truly,
‘5’; t. 4157“,; 4" {ff/(“Iva “x,”
General Attorney

 I EDWARD S.JOUETT ,
\‘ BEVERLEY R.JOUETT JOUETT EC JOUETT [,3 ' ‘I . 3' ‘_ ,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ., ' W/;
202-205 MEELDOWNEY BLDG. ,’\ ’3 V / r /3
WINCHESTER, KY. " ’ 2' :v C
RE:- Fields v. I.. & E. ., ,_
April 18th, 1915.
Judge S. M. Wilson,
General Counsel 3- & E. Ry. Co.,
Rxmmmmlw.
Dear Sir:—
I has made my arrangements to go to Whiteshurg to
assist in the trial of this case, but have just received a
wire from D. D. Fields advising me that the case has been
continued. It will therefore not be necessary for either
you or me to go on in this matter.
Yours veiygtwulZ)//7 //
/ J; // ' sag—‘~' ‘
//_// fI/d// WZC/é 2; x 61:;
V/ "4": ’ /9/«:
fl/; ¢//>”‘/ ///
_//A ’
(CC
BRJ—HS. \\/

 D.." :‘IELDS L.W.FIELDS
"A J ‘3 )
31.1). I< [BLUES &. SON , .. ~
LAWH/EBS ’ ° ' ' W“... '
,,7
WHITESBURG.KY, /4.v
,.' J/ _/ .‘N/Lj, '
_, ' ' " \3 I
L
! J ._ 3" f,“ = 3'31; Kw ..”.‘ x
; I‘ _. 5‘? 7 ->
l\ “ ’ [V
' _ ;
J V «a, ,
, , "L ’ , 1w :
. . ’/ ..-, J.'.) a
‘.. , ,. .,. .4
, . A. . _2 Lu} ‘ .J
_ V, ,7 J,
, :'_, ~ .. ‘
“'Jz-n (i \ .
«.A.k' ,) u )L A _.. , '7 ',,... J.’ . ‘,. '~-
.L -1 .. ‘ ILL . ,/ ..._ 'm‘ . " ' r) 'I'; P L.
..L . _. .J. ,‘E .':», ‘.: .L‘u‘._' 1' .' ..V .. .LL)“ . A; L‘
J“ . ‘
A— _1 . . v ' . IL;
‘ L ‘_‘ »'V I 'v‘ .. > J I," .
v ., . a7 x v 1‘ ‘
WWW «‘_m4m~Lw—KL.:MM.MW.1LMaim—mag; -. 9M3“ .‘,,...“
,.’“ I .‘ H "«L V.. , M "Q ;)~ .J: ‘ . “J.J, " 7 :, "I 1;?":
, , :‘.. ‘ ‘ H 4:‘,J ',‘ .r > J“' 7 V
L U . ., _ L »1., I, ._J._ m L); um um
/_,
H ‘.' s ‘ Am
9,] _JJ \\ pm ,
\J NJ -' A \

 y . ,-.L‘
\' .« ) .I
’ , /
5/ / 5 ,r /
,/ ,r/ .1‘ ' / .
_ " f ""
. j
‘5‘ I; .
. ',I a
' ’ ‘1 r/
. "A '\—//
. r7! '3 I,“ 5 s
Q {/3121 '.’-.., g
i i
.
n J 5 a, f; .L J ,. _5 ’3‘
:33". o “1 4v.) v "'3!
.L‘isu" - , "y 5‘ j".
“HI '3‘—='zu'_
. 5" L.:, I I
._.. T -: , 1.’.-,,. 1 a: “”1"“??? 5:5 ,2 '71 A
.‘.1- ‘2 u 1' »‘. :r 3:37.33- -. >1
("3‘1 (5053": 7. ’9' ’ .’ ‘i 1 r ' f"; "“1““ I} 'f. " ‘ $.72??? LT.’ '.1’7-"LL‘I'E7'35T? 727351,“???
' " 'I ‘" .‘ x, "u m :.I, .' r. ‘2 c ' -‘;..a _ :J.- -_; , 57%;“, ' '-,,r/:‘i '? '5” ‘2.»350'1'“ "9 5’ 5"", 3'5 . :r -
' - " 'v ‘ ' '.. . " .. - '-"'.-. . . i V .. .t .- . ’ av. H- . .. -" ,«
r : r ) ‘s '5! ’2 - 15'»? :5 \. ~ :.. > e: ~ 1 $.22): a) , %, ~-‘:L'.:‘
:2 9" """" i "In. I. 7m?" I‘m“ ; 9‘” ’7 ?, "”.." ' 1 ’3' '3 "3.'-,1“ ‘.'7 T ' " j; ‘ ‘.‘; -' "77". 53" ‘1'}?
8. 3.. I '.'r» ' ‘.v' o ‘1 .53. ' “$35."? '2 “r , Li"? Y a) .’ ""1: 54.... L ’..L. - ».I‘ ~ u; u
"f: : I"
5 T 4‘ :.v 2‘63 _.’.5 , ,5 ‘7 ,.5 r 3 , '2' .g .5, 3. ~_._; ,,J. .., ,1. ;\ Ti,“ . '5 .:. 1; ...,.” :3~ '_ ..Q . , . _, :3»
v 1; _‘ 5L ,' 1' .- , L. _. » .L. ~ I _ 5' ..1 s ,,..., ,'v ,_ L ~~
. ) . l ‘
3’ ' ‘fif,"'§,"2 '.‘/:." :4, "i 3‘ i ‘53 .T’x ’ "1r: ‘ (2,371 :3 .-~_ mm g 5:15) .1} y". 3513137: >313? . 1:555
» ' ' - . .- . A.. L . -,.J .. 7 N, _ ., .,.. _ _, _.‘ § 5 L '- ‘ .53, w ..
' W" In”; "a "”1“” if??? '7' f " '~ 1“ ': ‘- '?_ ‘, :_. ' " ' \ .','! ' 7; ‘ .‘L"! ,, "F391“- 53 x, ’3 1,. .L"?!,-, ”.‘.-g 7 "wit
172x315» r: "5' .../3r ‘.' K -. . ,‘5
.-. « . ' ‘.' - « 9
" - -; u 5 .: {-_‘-av
c 0 L .1. ' 2.121..
x '5,
.3“: iris; ‘
I .
5 ‘
7a,. A, ,,
~.' (. o
; 4 4 V- g'jr.\ . ,
lit-4'3. inf-..L 3i“. r131.
«

 4M-12-11-3767
LEXINGTON & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
v OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER 01“ CONSTRUCTION
LOUISVILLE, KY. Feby,26,1912
FILE No. 5'9/4
I it ‘3 t

(f V, .

1.3.12.3 .Jouett . . J
fieneral counsel,
Tinchester,fiy,
Dear Sir:
With reference to suit filed by J.F.Ehans against
r.cesey, JonesJDavis Co. and the Lexington “ Eastern Raihug
Uo. I presume that this is 3 case which should be fiefenfled
also by the Insurance 30. of Jones—Davis CO2, and 1 supgest
that you rive the Insurance Co. such notices as you desire it ‘
i th have. ”to name of the Insurance Company was the Casualty
company of America.
A In the event that you desire further assistance
from me, please let me know.
Yours truly, w
’ 7 i7 5' 7"

/ {Mw'eaee/iv

Uhief Engineer 0? Eonstguction (L
JEW/C
Dict

 ..
.2. ‘:
«£9—
”‘9.“
$37.
..,_
L: . ‘7.. ,
is
”‘;—,.’»;
‘3‘
. ‘4:
., ,, f
‘.__/ 2
.41“;

 i. ‘ ' 4
_ We‘rrtzLJJraz'y 31mg, 1911"}.
2'73. 4,70 "'3. willQWjJ'V-LZE/"s
LL”: 'L-"B-"o ,
‘ g1”: <3 «:3? Sit: :- . _ _
'."132112'5ILry5-3JJE JJih 6}. 52am; Jicz‘JJ 1"":57: aw" J2":r“::c- "'r‘Jilcr-‘ié‘kgf’
“WW." ‘I'"':':="J.J"3.‘:L.; *‘v.’~.;*~./’~L ‘.‘ C13. 3' ‘1}; ‘”J;,r «,«m Lgf:
j Z’J’fi‘a’fz.r?‘i.n Li. ith-JT'JL"._L"§, J ,.’“: 3317‘:’“V???"«I’VA 511’- 513,93]. Cc. , JiJ’J':J;/;«'JJJ 757763;... Y
‘.’ ‘:.??- ..’ «J: as“. -— :3 -‘EJ'-=Liis
' fir}. ‘ 01:11»: iii:«:LcJ‘i“*:~:LL«t~:.
“LL“. .’.. ’L ':vll v. : . 5: “Jr” 73’1"! Jer Can, Jonas? JZEJer>m.,
E‘L‘riflf'j’ {Sam-“J? V. «g . 4‘" .’"ZL «LL :7 71‘0” J:Jai:.-:JJ 7.337525%:
Q ’7 «”J Ca.
' ?"«r:J‘JL"=Jz*'?..'~‘-J F: r“- J" 1m 32' .’E-«zrnz 7 «3,? 71.0., :1? '.7)L":‘.‘?:’=.‘s Efrem”
7 _ m.
, . 7:. Ti? ... fir 9 rJ—L'Jr cr-
7 1“! “Jr." 527‘ L “"i.‘:??’ H'QCW} f 53"???»‘39
. “*-'*L'~:*?L 8: W 'J‘L'fi-é f3. '3". 7..-1?: an on, M 7.212%?an
. . now: «as n: 3‘ M ”“'.LerrfiJ‘wa ""2137?“
..1 «:‘JJVA‘JA‘, 7‘ :31“. «7::. Jazz: 71.:«73‘=’f§":”ifi}'i'iil
7194.5.“ ?:“Ti‘f“i'l i317. ’“th 4
.
7?ng Jinn.IJJ’L‘JLJJ": Live? J.’1?,*<'7:-st"‘.‘i't’i; «712227133
321*”:321‘J‘}.2'}.~J Gm“: ’§'~..‘o , “xi. :1n‘fii""1§fi:f="«f,0§‘l 5:1: 7:“ J 21:?31 13: y «L Lime? _
' Y..‘f."«3<=-:. 51:2).
I: "T. $3.12.?“ "1;. “The Z,~:J:=2:i:‘.~{r'i.0rx 4:2: FWJJJmJ 1 «:«J. '
. .
y ' ‘z’z'2Jifva‘: V- "J 33331;, .
T?J/OGP.
7‘w-l. ‘ . .'
1 .

 If ,- ."x, ' .
/ ‘ ‘} “‘.:“; 1 _
/ I \
.5 f '
I f ~,./f
/ :1 \ 1 February 14th, 1913.
3 9 ' .
:.'r. Clarence TT’illiarrson,
Lexington, Ky.
Dear Sizcz- /' - .
\ Quite a number of suits have recently been Filed against
the Lexington 81 Eastern Railway Company and the Jones—Davie Company, 3
but I have con ye? been a'ole ”to get copies of all the petitions
though I hope to have their all in by the first of the week. Most of
the-38o relate to darages from blasting o’r oth~ - trespase, but there
are three which are brought for 99'1‘80T131 i4‘ , ies which ought to be
defendedx‘oy tho Insurance Comiany. I u‘. 341‘ that they had. their
insurance with the Gasualty Company of -fiiea 5nd euggest that you,
as attorney for the receiver of tho J avie Commny, write them -
at once notifying thorn that theoc 5* ~' \ 7 been filed and that
you expect them to wake the dofeneéfi
" As Jones Brothers 3 a 315-10 created. in having- any possi— '
hle'jurigmenta paid by the lz'ew‘ lice Corrpcny rather than by themsel-
ves—1 or the Jones-Davis Com"r\ even the L. 8: 213., I think it
till 731-3 well for you to j of you“: letter to then with the
request Lhit th 1y advi 1%” 3101‘ or not they gave pr-fioer notice
at the ti o of the ac %3a the Insurance Company.
.‘Eho sui 9%,ferred ale ‘ -
Treosl 6: E. E. R. Co., ,Joncs Brothers and Jones-
Davis Com my 11 which the plaintiff oaoKs to recover $2,000.00
“or on 1113' cursed '11-v falling slate in a tunnel on September
5th, 1911. - have an ivpression that "this suit has been set-
tled 1113.1; recently another suit has been filed by Treseler,
the petition of chich I have not yet received. I will advise . '
you about it as soon as it coo-es in.
J. 1“. ”fvans v. L. 8: E. 9.13.00” EJ. Casey and Jones-Davis Com-
pany. A suit for $510,000.00 for injuries received by the ex—
' plooion of a blast '.."hich plaintiffflwas Filling with powder
and in Which there scored to hon/'33 been more fire left firom a
previous springing of the hole. This accident occurred on
.‘w’arch 26th, 1911. '
John COVES, odwinietrator of William Jones, v. Jones—Davis Com-
pony and Lexington 8c Eastern Railway Co., Suit by the adrinis—
tractor of William Joneo, Who it is alleged. was Killed in the
funnel on Soptewber 5th, 1911, Try the, top caving in. The plain-
' _ tiff asks for $10,000.00. ' . ,, ~
‘ Yours very truly, ‘
ESJ/CGP.

 . _-. , .
v i V '
.~' I g
.' I. l.
.‘ .7 I _ " "
» ' l J .
., r' .~‘" ,
'x7 2' / .
i. » ‘\_.L~" ‘.'? ‘....nysan1 '; .3' '2 a (2" a
' :15, V .-1 '.'.'-z 1.;; 2.53) .'.w'iJ-Lo
“"»xnufi'r) rs ' 3f “- "'f '3’ a". g" "- .,' ‘.w-u-:-w->~-~
., ‘.'.' -v ..1 :. .;:. ..l' - 3 Eve-..‘. ’ ; .'.}.L _f . ':IE.’
15 951:”. 7711'.“ g 3" Yo
*1 an 2-
T'ET’A’l #3041 ”I Fran-.»1» '7 4.1.; T ";-'~— ':'.H In 1 .L: ~61- V"-'r"§-‘u V1 n ' 'r' :1‘"-«\ '"’ ’I " ”"‘ 'f’”
3:12... ‘.. ..) ..--., ' .;.-.. ' ‘L z 1 .'. _ .. a7 : 'iii.‘ 7.: ._‘. “.»- .' .‘. L' L L ..'7; ‘ CM {3“ .2 .- ,5:,
re ."sQf'V'"! .
.~.. . .
‘T - " A~,”, ,. ,. L ._>. ‘.>_.| .:.... ...; -? .., ; TM ,. .4 .. ' .,.»" it , . , o
“LE-.F’?) :' 'Lt’fl-fifl": ;..."t~'.t."f"i*'.v .L.’ '::r 553.1? J..: 35.9-3-‘3.
-. v r‘r ~ —. w- ...
‘1"! rue aw ‘». -» T .1 7‘ m :- .'“ ».
. 0 23.5325 ».’.ui; ‘if 9 .‘~.:I1~ ..-. L'L. *0 L'.‘. 1 ::tf‘f.
v ~- Mix“. ,L w: 1 _. .1
. '1 ‘ 1.‘ ‘.'»i ‘.’.‘F‘L‘itf . .
{.1. .._-o . ‘1 .'L‘ ‘- :: ‘I "o L.. {..“--.:3; J j P‘ QC.
'."} s" r: ',r 2"»: ~ ’ .’7 T "_ "' ‘ rm -+ -
.'.. u. ..:IL‘C-‘JJ— 'J 'I .‘.‘. .1. ..J 3 -'L3 ’95:.
1 Few -‘ -;~‘~ \2 r‘ T c "‘- -— ‘ .«.
::.; ..u .I. val J . .:.‘. .0 ; ‘.’-I~. c
at" 2»:.‘9 J ‘51. ,1» r: .>.» *'» ~h s-n“, a. 4‘4 ‘1 .- .1 w :‘.m- - v! :‘- -‘r .— m- 7 ‘-'i-'>. L". '* ‘
I 1' .L: -.c I. s. _'.. «13.13. ‘..» . .. .l.1-‘~'.- 0:: .~.: -_.a.:‘.-’ L =2;: : 11.29 3L.'-’._Lg

. ‘ -,.- - L_‘ 1.. 3 v1 - ,3, .i. .1}, , L.., ...4 4.‘ . : . ..__,” ...,.» . ._ - »4 u .. —

5.2;, ..) .1. .”'-E: ::..) L. d: ; .o 1,:..1: :3 {4:73,}; ‘ J. L‘ 1‘5. 5.“ GIL, .153..11'."1-§a ' .~’.- ...i _; a; 5:3? ;'.37..=" :5:. fig

r. ,. .,., - *- 4» :,1. , ' w r, -\ r: . w .‘ .

, ‘1‘: .- ~ , r Mi ._ -.-, .7 new ‘."»1f‘x,‘ v. r was» ~ .:,».~ -__ he «. ,- - ~ 7, ., L a?»

L..‘ .1:. .,.'" _‘-:o .3. “.~. ;..: «;.... .‘. . L'. iv:- . ..3.]. ~’. -. :3;..‘1‘ .. t :‘J.::- 4.’,2.‘ 1' ' ‘.’.“ ‘.‘3
’..‘ " L.L? 1», --~ A a. ,L 1. ‘ -.._ z 1 ‘. '"‘»‘= ._ 1 ..1 1» ;. ._... ~ . ». ..L . .'2 '..

"..“ 1:3 I ’ '1 . -»" '.’ L.'- 5631511? :1?-H: .1 1‘.! ’.‘.‘] 3‘14 0 .‘.'.L ‘..‘-1‘7??? Hall. v .‘ 2; 7,71: ‘ _'f 237/. ' "’if-Q

T I »,y»; pun (‘~‘. . , :‘wqp 5 as 1 nr 3 ,.L cc"; .’“-.2 P'u‘r ’ ""‘ 1 7 ‘7 P?“ t' '7 7 ‘3 '”'
.. .7. J .:L~._- ',. :..'. 1;; i. "x: a ,' ,. .:..‘.J. .;. .. W, ‘. - .‘.. . -o
' _. i... . L ~... ~ ““‘ .1 ..”....J‘ ...1. ‘ .... .L .‘ . . - A -' .‘ —' ism .. i '
. .._.}. ,:.:L; {.:,}9, gig}. :Ii,:{‘.‘:..-,’; :.,..5 :5 2». 1. (.‘”... -Y__ :59 {4;:}: :‘.;t? 7' (.;:? 3:91;":
p. , .-,1, . ,. , ._ .,.- . ..»...i.-- .L....

;“; _.,.. 1‘ :11—‘1 -»-,.— :.-L {a ,L f,» .L r -,—, . .L 1., ,.L - r .L, A, ,A_ ;_ : . -L » . -' .:_ ' L.

g mi..}. ..:“: ._ V. .-. ...E-Jedi, .- tLLT-r will :53-nu .2 the ;..sti Lies;

—w<" J ‘.. ,'. 1 '.5 ,- ’.V ., L. - u.“ .. »..-u .17 “ ‘. .--' ‘1 ' 4.. 1“..- ‘ . '1 . ,. “V L: ‘ »

F l u. :33: t .2" 9:27: ”PM“ :-..z-.z._« -- 1.1.; 1550. p.211 : , =2t3~;:2*. .‘1 s31 in '
' .1... ,. -, l- -' .. , ,. ,, -' ._.. : .
:1 T ‘3.-1!? .‘isly '.:§?.f-31,1‘.'.?-‘1‘ is; it.

T 1.7,..,., ,_.. .L. ._.n, L. .‘. ,,..é. ,_.. ‘_.1, ..“./”HA3 2... ‘ . 1. .. V.\-.~.",— L ‘ w.‘ . ,., .. . ~ ,..

._.. ‘1’.) 3.1"?” . :‘. ,.‘ .L.-L) ‘." ' . : 1‘ : ="~.-=_'. .'.. “13:0? 1 L- '..3 3 Flu} '7".

“7‘7"? 41‘9‘47'1' ‘3 (.‘1 fr": 5.” 1‘:.‘91,':‘ ,7./‘:‘?" f 1w- ‘1. {3f ‘;‘z'y‘w {‘:"" (':“‘.":-'1,'>f: 'E‘ E‘.’"*; -“; V' " "i1 ‘:‘ 1’1 5 ('II‘, t.“'I“-i‘.'l‘..i ."'?

. .. ...,. . 1: ..L.. .,._. __. ‘.-... ,,:“...LL.

‘1'-’:‘. "447“: ”‘./‘0‘. 5‘3‘7‘s"~i“‘-:\F ':':i’. ':'-“’3' , '1 ‘27? T ‘ ”’i "r 7 raw? .“’-~37" ‘I.!“ ',,rfN‘é'! ‘2 ~.,-*' . i~..=,._ -.»- 4' ll

. . ,. . ,, .- .:. __-. . . .‘ :. .1 , ... ;.--; _ ,4 v ., .~. .1 L.' -. ...' ..‘ ,_, . ,, . w ‘

L..-21:: ,.,L. w.., .- ,_:L, .L,L. ,,./... tn,” ' ,~,.,F : ‘i-“t --=,.... ,.L L; 1., L..L; - .- ~ ~ ”31%-x .~.— », ,w- ..., 1.,.,

I .:2 - ‘, .:-'.;.' . .l ,.:“, t' y 1’. :..'. .. c -.3: :.= ...‘ -. . ,. ! ;..»; .1:-..- .“ f-J'J ~.‘:_- ’.'. :_.:

.' ’- .O L ,-. ..‘ -' in, .. L " .: '1 J.. . . ,_ ‘ -. ‘- .«. .._ .. a . . .- . ~. . a . g “

..,..p.. .,,,,A .... r L, . ,_ , . , e ,, ,..} _ ,.,,... .. . ;.~v~,» .-. ‘.' .

I. 1_. :.. L: 5::" 9}}. :.' {.‘5_5—,.'“ :_7' .54341' if? ’ =3.." ‘..‘ . 0 ‘.’. (.:. .:T’i -':’ . 7.1-39.5" L: '..“.153

.1, u , L. . .,; ,.. 'r' .. ._ ..1 ' .. ,1.: ,. _ . ~_.. . {.,. ,."”, A. ~.:».w a : .».I”. L- L .>_;

L‘.’}? ..3 “7‘01. 13; 42:; _‘1 ‘T .'3'":- '; ‘3.-:'. :.".)”.é 517‘- ? '* '~’? '.‘. “11.31.1339, ‘if JJ.”.- {‘.'1 ,_. sf? ._’G‘L’f

.". ”’. «:3;-y r7; 5‘ (‘1 ti'i‘fs [:.'-.;"VI". :31!ti .‘"-‘.“": "7:1": Os“? " I“, " '“'-"i ”,"'?"T‘ Vzd’fi“? “T "1 f? .“‘—9 ”IE“? 7' 5:173. 3'19"“

" “.‘2.”. , We“ 5 7‘. 1 Tam. "'r 'r' '? raw .“»-7: .V‘ v that" '.m'w '.‘:x'i' the: r? «' .~.-.". ‘I'-’7 7 7 ‘:“I:

~. _ .,I .. _~.. _ . , . 1 ..L L .' c .. : . ,.,, r-L. 1- 3w.» 3.' -_ -* 4.4-.:; .J.;

A .. ..‘ ‘- .'n .,.L . . M14 . Li -' ,: . L ':.,gL.. t L. L..‘ , -_ n , 5.. .,.. . .,_. “._...? .L L' '- ' ... , s ,-

x- ”.'..'rf’j. o .’. f If??? '“' ’; 27:5: ".‘..‘ (3.1.: i 7.‘- ‘.~:T' '». "13.1.53; .114. i O 9.143“ . ."." Z V.‘.L‘LJ. '7: ’. .’. 2.33

, A : ‘.‘ -: 1. ,; x .:.. : ~..“ ,.1 1 _ ... ,‘,, “ _-L ‘. .. _,, .... - L. . ‘-. . 1 - .

.:. t 1.12“: ref-t w..: F311“? ..._ ill 4* 1..-:2 demand ‘7:7j,‘/}-’..’1‘7"'l.‘.3i span
.,,,, . —. .- .., .1 ,,., ,7,. _~ . , .,, ._.L ., ..A 1, ,N . ,._L . .L 1:. ,L :.. ‘. .. L... ‘- ,‘5 1. .‘.- 4.1..
1'!‘ ‘,J—.’.. .3.:2 a i f ,’,”:i. ’7‘-..TT- ’.' 5.7.13: Iii :..‘”: ":'."Hfi-o .(j '13 ”an? "HIV." 1. 5 .'_5-3 ':.13

.. 1 L. .L. ':. ... ,,..~ .‘ ..> : a ..L .. a 7 5 IL I ': .-. - .4 -‘ L .-... .... x .n

L.‘.“;filf-T ”:‘.-':“iTL‘ '.;.s" 7 1533107; 9331.2 ‘3. 3’3??? 11,! <‘.‘f31.€',-.',.' 1LT, ..‘. F ‘iff-".11: J .‘.':Tl ‘..‘}; ‘.‘.‘.’.Lf3‘ ‘3

.- .. L. ,: . -. ,., .t t» . 4' .g ’3 ., _.‘ . .'. . L.., J ..‘....”l ‘» .,. , '.> 3 1,. .a. -: . ..,. _'. . g

s .L.”... _:. ”4.1132312 .:;-rent. ‘.;C’ be in .;o as tr- 1. 1.1:: t 1".

‘-Y n .- . ~ .. 3
I 1‘93 «»_v\u. ‘3)...2
r, in? -.;-q a .3’" is. ..J,

"1n T I, {:.'-'.'":

-,.~ .,«i'

_ fit,” _ .I. .

."- .~.. .. 1» 4 —> -‘ f-

urs: i}: 1 .1.-'3 «.719.

 COURT OF 5%? ALS 0* K HTUSRY
.i.?TXIEIt‘I '».‘Ci‘l (‘l .‘z’xifl‘ifgi ;i/‘LfL.I.’\"LL CI}? IAIN, et. a]. . , . . ..’11".i‘?311]".fxli’.“
..1-:8"
C. l-~‘l”'lhl2’53. Jr. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . ui
POINT; Mfi:;flm1£hifi”d ‘
_._..—000......—

Nailurc to object to evidence in the trial Sourt mi the
time it is offered, is waiver of all objection no it? asmissi~
bility. ‘

HR L,L,, RR, Ferry Vs~ Evans ‘ _

30 L.R_, 1168, C.fl C.hy. Co. Vs» gutterfield

£31 .L.ik., 2;3$, “diluiorl ‘35—- 1 .F‘.. ‘1, 2 ~ ii, CC).
11

If, in the progress of a trial, evidence is introduced by
either party at variance with the issues made hy the pleadings,
without objection as to its competency, the error is WUiVCd, the
testimony is properly bcforu inc jury, and Lhe Lauri may proper—
ly invtruct tho Jury in reintion to the whole firld of inquiry
covered by the OVidonce.

so Cyc., lfifié, lolo,
1.57.9 Ky. , 100, Sutton VS~ "'.',lf,5';‘el. CO. '
110 Ly., 670, Laysville Vs~ Guilfoylo

JD 5.x. 116%, ende Adr. Vs— Ashlanu Vteel Co.

 ’0 \‘Q
\
1
III
It is not error to omit to instruct as to low of contrib—
utory negligence in an instruction for plaintiff, Therm the Court
in giving dofondant'o instructions charges the jury fully and
faily on that point.
l9 Cyc,, S,
- SC Uyc,, 460, 652,
IV
She instructions fully and fairly presented the issues
and were such as ought to have boon given, ‘
145 (3., 55$, Iciillan to, V3— Blushcr to.
25 31.3. 34Q3, 31.i T?,R_ii,Co. Vs—-'Doun
93 Ey,, 471, James Adr. Vov lcfiinimy,
, ll Bu., 464, Robinson V3» lebb.
ll? $.T, dlfi, Fin? Ttn, Ry Co, Vow “inley,

If there was any contributory negligence on the part of
plaintiff, negligence on the part of defendant is necessarily
assumed. fine one 15 correlative of the other.

29 330., 506
53-35 7..?31, 1:53.}, FI,}:,'1;,E.Jo., ”ass—- Light},
v1
Yhe cvitwncc shows conclusively there woo no contributory
negligence.
29 Cyc,, 50b, 512, 626
110 1y,, 67C, saysvillc Yo— Guilfoyl .
Til
lhen the verdict justly detorrines the controversy errors
which under other circumstancoo would justify a reversal will be
disregarded.
115 fly, 53‘}, 1c. 1118.11 3.5.0, V8— fll‘amhor 1, C.

 f
t
COL}??? 0“ AM" :‘.L...‘ O39 K'lei‘liti)".
‘..'?i‘ilii"?l‘i’).‘.‘ tier-":25:: :.Aitfifm' Cm }--A‘EY. eta. , . . . . . . . .ADJ?”MATTE.
’ Ts"

,, C. 91121.:21, 1r,.u‘,

' Bil??? :90}. [hi/.;.}. i

. ~~e00~~~

Appellants assign five separate grounds for reversal of
the jud;ment herein. Thoroughly convinced that the verdict and
judgment were authorized by the proof and are such as ought to
have been rendered, and that no reason exists for disturbinm then——
notwithstanding appellants’ contentions——we will discuss the grounds
urged for reversal in the order of their assignment:

. 4

Appellafltfi complain that the Court erred in authorizing
in the instructions——lnstruction “o, l—~a recovery for aonellee‘s
exjenoitures for medical attention, on the ground that the anount
of sued GXpenditurc is stated in the petition as “ ,.,,,.,.,."
To Jault in to be found with the rule in refinrd to pleadinf stated
by annollants and neon w ion they rely. Tut as an error it is not,
in fact, so real as it is apparent. It is erroneous when only the
petition is considered. Apropos of taeir contention in this con—
nection and the nut orities cited to sustain it, appellants have
=tudiously avoided calling tfle attention of Hour 'onors to the fact

1

 i
K
tint tne proof, such as there was, of Lne oxpenditurvs for medical
Lreatmont went to the Jury without a Sin lo objection of exception
on the part of appellants, So far as tnis record shows, at no time
during the trial, or in tne motion or grounuo for new trial, wan
tuo Tourt's attention Called by either of appfillants to the blank
4 allegation of such oxoonoituroo, when the iucstions concornin: ouch
expenditures woye nroponndod to uppelloc; and nonelloe is his only
witness on tnis subject. The evidence on tfiis subject, for appoll—
co, in full is the following (IV, 8):
1. ‘ hat exnense did you incur in *oing L0 Tristol
including doctor hills, hoard, 'c,, includ—
in; trdicnl uttnntion perfornod on your nyo
and other expenses connected with it”
A, i don't know exactly; 1 never figured on it;
1 Spent in going over thorn and coming
back—~wcll, i don't Anon Just how nuch_
3. About how much did you spend?
A, ”bile Z nos gone to Cristol, l was out between
‘50 and iii), and board. and LI‘I-liz’l fzirc‘ ‘:I'nilo
3 was over thorn 7 thin: figurwo out about
551 or b? in all.
A. (hat have you paid out here, if anything“
xi, LL dori't rorxnjber‘liOV'!xucih l lfllid I r. icon
some, 1 twink .2 or 3 for dressing it when
it. was first done.
,. then no LI'cntwd you :'st'o for ‘.'-{nick you have
not paiu him; is t'v'mi, Correct"
A. ”es, sir, I have not finally souilod vitn Riv
on all of it.
1. Unen y u don't finow Want you own fir. Ison, if
anything?
A, ”o sir, not ~nctly, but i owe him noun.
inat evidence going to the jury without any sort of object—
ion mnoo or CXCOytiOD taKen by appellants aL tho time, nude it nor—
fnoLly oviocnm to the Court that the iosuo thereon was squarely
undo, And no objection or oxen tion having been ma 0 or taken at
the time to such evidence by anpollnnto, they cannot now Complain.
2

 i
K
in this point, this flourt, in Kerry Ve— i‘vane, ea L,I,, 9?,
said:
As grounds for revereal annellnrt urges the
error of the Court in pernitting the witnees,
..unnn to testify as to statements made by appell-
ant concerning the agreed line. 2e see no reason
why thie evidence Was not competent. Rut pflsniflfl
. that question the Jetter may be disposed of by
ens/inf; that 3.19 93331 31¢.t.3:1.0.:£ ‘.'-:an trade at UM? time it
was given, and it Eggnot tngggflggiiggml.nerg“.
' And in C. a 0. Hy. Co. Vs~ Batterfield, 30 L.R,, 1169, the
Court said: '
”Conceeding for the purpose,of the argument
that what was: said was not :1 part of the roe T'TF)“‘~-
3&6, and Was, turrefore, incompetent, toe eviience
was not objected to at the tire it was adduced, and
tzaernfore. the 53.22.21: 9.1: 2.3.2 91359103}. $523291 emit
now".
Again, in Garden Vs— £.fi. n J. h.t_ Cw,, bl .L., 255, the
. Court says:
”Fne Court limited each party to the introduc~
. tion of four witneseee on the trial, but no objec—
tion was taken to this, and therefore, no conglpint

9.32 299: 9.35: 9.11 it £15533." .

In addition, appellants on their cross—examination of Ur,
lson who, on hie direct examination by appellee, had been asked
nothing concerning the fees due him by appellee for ncdical treat—
nent, asned hiu this question: (h 67)

Q. What Was the amount of his doctor bill, Doctor?
A. 1 little believe I charged him H3, the best 1
remember about it now,

As before said, with the evidence of his expenditures for
medical treatnent going to tne jury without objection on the part
of appellants, and the fact that evidence of such exnenditure was
brought out by appellants on their own initiative, fully authorized
the Court to treat the issue an squarely made, and, consequently,
it was the Court’s duty to instruct the jury on the question,

..3

 |
N
in 3B Cyc., 1595, the rule in thie connection is Stated as
follows:

”It is very generally held that a failure to
object to evidence in the trial Court at the time
it is offered, is a waiver of all objections to
its admissibility. It is equally well settled
that although the evidence would have been inad—
mieeible over proper objections, it is properly
in the caee, and cannot be excluded from the jury
by instructions limited to u particular irvue, or
disregarded by the appellate Tourt."

And supporting this rule this Court, in Sutton Vs—
‘1, i, Eel, 00,, l?€>5£y,, 106, says:
”Appelleeo Counsel claims that there was no

Competent evidence that tne wife started this mes—

senger to her husband in the country. This is

true, However, aupellant gave testimony to twig

effect, and it was not objected to, ”e have no

doubt had there been an objection, tgo ”curt

would have excluded it, but there being none, the

;wiiziw. was ELIEJLGLli Lev-:.1". are. the. i U. 1;: 310.: 2.2-2

consideration”.

And in the case of City of iaysville ”s— fiuilfoyle

llO ty., 670, the Court Said:

"The testimony which this instruction would
require the jury to disregard, was admitted without
objection, and if imprOpor should have been objected
to when offered”.

In 68 Cyc , 1615, the rule is further treated as follows:

*“*****‘*"“herc are, however, numerous decis—

ions holding that an instruction may be based on evi—

donce admitted without objection on issues not within

the pleadings but in fact litigated by the parties, and

this rule, it ie believed, is better supported both by

LTNlSOH ;nid Hie weigflit of aurfiiority_ Accozwiin ; to {piis

latter doctrine, if, in the progress of a trial, evi—

dence is introduced by either party at Variance with

the issues made by the pleadings, without objection as

to its competency, the error is waived, and the Court

may properly instruct tne jury in relation to the whole

field of inquiry covered by the evidence”,

And, as said by this Court in the Case of cane, Admr.
’ Vs~ As’ulzmo Steel Company, L50 ..;-~1. , 116/1:

 O O
l
H
”The rule ie that if there is any evidence, the
question is for the jury”,

no tnat, we contend these authorities are conclueive of

the question. The evidence going to the jury without objection,
I and evidence on the question brougnt out Ly appellante on their
' own initiative, it may "Erogcrlx in Egg gage”, was then competent,
and it was the duty of the Sourt to instruct the Jury on the ques—
tion and issue raised by it.

flowever, there is notninq to Show.tne least Connection tot»
Veen the *vioence on this subject and the instruction of the Court
coveryin; it, and the verdict returned by the Jury. flooollee says
his expenditures, so far as he Could tnen remember or thte (Ev, 8)
amounted to ‘51 or 5% in all; and, forwtne sure or nrgurent grant

, that the instruction authorizing the recovery of this auount is
erroneous, is the allowance of tnie small sum sufficient cause to
reverse this case? Te think not.

11,

Appellants complain tnat tne inntructione are otntrwiee
erroneous, upon the assumption that tney nre not liable unless
guilty of negligence and that the "negligence in tnie cane must
have been a failure to give timely warning” of the blunt, and pro—
ceed? upon the theory that nopellee nud timely Morning and Failed
to regard it. ‘

Te do not agree with appellants that tnc rule in Cases of
tnis sort ie, that persons ”yggg Eerncd, egg gag must figfig their
Epsitiong enfe", On the contrury, the rule in that one who is
where no has tne right to be and near to where another in lawfully

, engaged in blasting, :md who in warned of a coming exploeion, nuet
use reasonable diligence to escape danger on account of it. He is
not required to ”make himself safe”, but only tr uee such diligence

b

 g
i
us an ordinarily prudent ran would use under eimilnr circumstances.
The complaint that instruction 10. l is absolute, without qualifi—
cation and proceeds upon the theory that the bluetinr was, per so,
wrongful, is not “ell founded, for instruction "N", very poeitively
and plainly precludes any such conclusion. Here it is:

"The Court instructs the jury that the defenuante

- had tne right to blast rock, earth and substances From
the right of way, by means of powder or dynnnite; and if
you Snell believe from tne evidence in this case that
the defendants gave warning of an approaching blunt, by
means of a whistle or otherwise, and Such Warninm was
reasonable, then it ran plaintiff's duty to use reason—
able diligence to escape danger from the approaching
blnnt“.

That instruction is more obgglute and with much lese
Qualification than is instruction To. 1, Yet appellants proceed
upon thfi uncory taut a "warning” however given, is :uf icient to
relieve tnem of liability, and quotes from 129 Fed,, 177, Gary Ve—
Torgmnon, as follows:

”While a railroad company has the right to blnst
rocn from its right of Way by means of gunpowdei':uni .
dynanite, it has no right, without warning, to throw
rocks upon persons who are lawfully occupying or using
neighboring pronerty, one such an act is n troupnco”.
And yet, we eubnit, the instruction given by the Court
quoted above, is in strict accord with that citation,

We have been unable to read the opinion in Cary Vs~ lorri—
oon, supra, cited by appellants, and are, therefore, unable to nay
what the Facts were therein, Hut in 19 Cyc,, e, the rule there
stated, supports thoroughly the instruction as given by the Court.

”it has been held that where one is injured by
falling Eton“ and debris, caused by blunting while
;ruvelinj upon the highway, the persons conoucting
the work are liable therefor regardless of the cure
used in its prosecution, and a recovery cannot be
defrntnd by the fact that there was no negligence
in one pro ecuticn of the work; in some jurjrdic—
tions, nouGVer, the person engaged in blasting is
liable from injuries resulting from negligenca“.

G

 I L-
\
And, in 29 Cyc., 460, it is stated:
.-- . 1 . ‘ . .
"yersone us1ng cangerous agenCiee are required
to use the utmoet cure to prevent injuries and to
V adopt every known safeguard".

Appellant further complains that instruction ‘0, l is
erroneous because it mares no reference to the instruction on con—
tributory negligence following thereafter by the ueuul ”unless"
or "although" clauses. This was not error. in 20 Cyc,, 052, the
proposition is laid down: '

"it is not, however, error to omit to instruct the
jury as to the law of contributory negligence in an in—
struction given for plaintiff, where the Court in givinfi
defendant‘s instructions charges the jury full; and
fairly on that point."

Tut upon this point there need be no question, in View

, of the opinion of this Court in the case of L, h D, n, 3, Co. Vs—
Sights, 28 1.31,, 186, wherein the Court enid: '
"The third instruction incorrectly states the rule
as to controbutory HOfllflOHCG in that it assumes that
in order to be entitled to it the appellant's agents
must haye been entirely free of negligence, This is
contrary to the whole theory upon which Contributory
negligence is pTPdiCHtGd. iontributory negligence on
the part of plaintiff niceeanily ossums nc licence
upon the part of the defendant; the one in correlative
of the other”.

So that, unccr the authority Just cited, the plea of
and instruction covering contributory negligence, neeumed negli~
gence on the part of appellants; and the instructions as fiivcn by
the Court are in thorough accord with the eviucnce and the laW.
But, on the other hand, granting for the sake of argument, the
failure of the Courtto qualify instruction No. l by the instruc—
tion on contributory negligence, by the use of the usual lynleeefl
g; :Qlthou h" clogge, is error; yet, we do not think, in view of

A the eviuence, that woul; just fy a reversal:
IV
I

 ‘ }
'\..
”Appellants” complaint of the instructions is, in
* some measure, well founded, but on the Whole they were
not so erroneoue us to euperinduco an unjust verdict, and
this being true, it cannot complain thut they did not in
all rcepects conform to the law of the Case. ‘
lob fiy., 539, Lolillun >c, Ve— Sluenor NC,
- Is not that quotation most fittinnly appliCuble here?
Granting that there are tho errors uppollant‘s coxplejn of, are
tncy ”so erroneous as to ouporinduce an unjust vcruict”?
eut when read in the light of the evidence, the instructions
fully and fairly preeentefi the i once, and we‘o such an ought to
have been given.
ill?) i..};H :':L('}2_;., 1.,.1 Z§,§.,,}~i,Co. X’s- E‘O‘v‘i,
95 Ky., 471, Janos, Adr Ve~ Toiinivy
ll Fueh, 464, Lobineon Vs— Webb.
ll? n.7,, 413 fine ftn. fly, Co. Vow ’inley,
Ill.
Appellants insist that uppellee fine guilty of contrihutory
, negligence. tut what is the evidence on that question° Improooe
thereto, uppellee toetifioe no Follows: (TV. 10} I
Q. Comy0L1.Knovn fron,xfiiic}1'pluce the :voci: Gavin
whether (101.37} at the lower olefin :‘.t the
lower end of term, or fron cvvr here at
this work?
A, It could not have come fron the lower end of
town at the lower place.