xt73bk16mf8w_347 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. [268a] M.C. Fields v. L&E, etc. Letcher Circuit Court text [268a] M.C. Fields v. L&E, etc. Letcher Circuit Court 2016 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/51w14/Box_34/Folder_11/1187.pdf section false xt73bk16mf8w_347 xt73bk16mf8w MR.SAM.M.WILSON,
. ' LEXINGTON,
/‘ , ‘ ,./ K V.., I,
1:, . /'T 1‘, »..
. {/ , .- _ {I _r I ’.’/I / I ‘
-~- ‘ < ‘. , ; . .:' /’ ~‘ . Q
Vol. 153—No. 1 3... A (7L6; ‘_‘" P. 1—192
...FEBRUARY 26, 1913
;i’

‘ ( >

NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AMERICAN DIGEST SYSTEM
' (Every Case Reported) (Every Case Digested)

‘ ATLANTIC NORTHEASTERN ,. Annotated to CENTURY DIGEST (1658-1896)
FEDERAL NORTHWESTERN DECENNIAL DIGEST (1897-1906)
PACIFIC SOUTHEASTERN AMERICAN DIGEST (Key-No. Series)
SOUTHERN SOUTHVVESTERN MONTHLY DIGESTS (to date)

(U.S.) SUPREME N.Y. SUPPLEMENT J REPORTER DIGESTS
. ONE CASE A KEY TO ALL CASES
One Case as (2 Starter
will bring you every case in point
If
you use the Key-Number Annotatlon
W ”'_
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
ST. PAUL, MINN. .
SulmcrIfit-Sion Price. payable in Eulvunce, $5:m
delivery of bound \‘ululnes. $4 a. volunle '

 ___—___...—
The Courts Accept .
H 11
References to Words & Phrases
because they recognize and .
_ cite the work themselves
For example: ‘
Sabbath ;
Nicholls, J By common usage the terms “Sabbath”
S C and “Sunday" are used indiscriminately to .
upreme ourt denote the Christian Sabbath; that is, Sun-
of Louisiana day. “Sabbath Day" is synonymous with
“Sunday." Words and Phrases Judicially
Defined, vol. 7, p. GEL—Town of Winnlield
v. Grigsby, 53 South. 54. _
, 12E 3:!
Salary
Pearce J “Moreover, that case is clearly discrimi-
’ . hated from the present in the fact that the
Court Of Appeals . claim made there is for salary, while the
of Maryland claim here is for ‘services rendered,’ bring-
ing the account into close analogy with the
account in Steuart V. Chappell, supra. The
word ‘salary’ in itself imports a specific con-
. tract for a Specific sum for a certain period
of time. 7 Words and Phrases. p. 6287.”—
Blick v. Merc. Trust, & Deposit Co. of Balti-
more, 77 Atl. 846.
___—___— .
Order for the set
_ 1913 2 ~
WEST PUBLISHING C0,, St. Paul, Minn.
Gentlemen: Send me a set of Words and Phrases, 8 vols, buckram
binding, at $48, on the following terms: $10 payable on delivery; balance
_ payable $5 a month; title to books to remain in the West Publishing Co.
till payment is fully made. . .
Order subject to acceptance by the West Publishing Co.
09339

 Ky.) LEXINGTON & E. RY. CO. v. FIELDS 43
the plain letter, as well as the spirit, of the that the patent is filed therewith as part
ordinance, subject to the payment of the tax. thereof; but, when the case was heard in
The purpose of this ordinance was to im- the circuit court, the patent was not in the
pose a tax upon all of that class of persons record. It was afterwards found by the at- _
who were engaged in the business of adjust— torney for the plaintiff, and copied by the
ing fire insurance losses within the city of clerk in the transcript at his request. The
Louisville; and when it says that “every case must be tried here on the same record
person” so engaged shall be subject to the as in the circuit court. If the copy of the
tax it is immaterial that they acted in the patent was in fact filed with the petition
capacity of agent for some one else. The and lost from the record thereafter, it may
fact that they engaged in the business at all be supplied by a proceeding for that purpose
renders them subject to the payment of‘ the in the circuit court, but the clerk was with-
tax. A corporation is but an artificial per— out authority to copy in the transcript a
son, and it, by the means resorted to in this paper not in the record, until the record was
case, insurance companies could escape the supplied.
payment of more than one license tax, so an The copy of the patent is stricken from
individual might, with as much propriety, the record.
employ as llléllly agents as his business should :2
require and insist upon the payment of only
one license tax, upon the theory that the - - . 1 ,
business was. in fact, being conducted by him LEXIBGLOA (511:. 1“' CO' at ‘11‘ v.
through these who did the work, although ‘ ‘ LVLDb' .
the success of the undertaking was depcnd- (90‘1” Of Al’pcnls 0f hem‘ICk-V' beb' 4’ 1913')
out entirely upon the individual skill and 1-\J‘3XPL051}'153 (§, 191*)"‘B_[“‘§S“NG‘."1NJURIES‘
capacity of the particular agents. To so held 61:13:53. (;(TRL?31:§IBLFOM ALQUL'M‘CE—
would be to defeat the evident purpose 0f “18 . ‘ \Vliere plaintiff was injured by a stone -
ordinance and (IGDI'iVe the City Of a portion thrown from a blast set off by defendant, wli'ctlh-“
of its 111901110! (’0 \"hip . -_ ». 7‘ . , .- er the warninvgivcn by (lctcndant prior to tie
Tl l" ,. l 't .. _111 it lg ”mu“, Ultlflled' blast was sutlii-ieiit, and whether plaintiff exer-
1e 11a. coui coiicct 3 held that appellant ciscd ordinary care to protect himself from the
was subject to the tax. danger, hcid for the jury.
Judgment affirmed. [Ed Note—For other cases, see 'Explosives,
Cent. Dig. §§ O, 10; Dec. Dig. § 12.55]
2. I)A)IAGES (§ 148*)—PERSONAL INJURIES—-
MEDICAL l‘lxm-ixsn. . ~ . d 1
, . , q n, V y ,Y Y 7 _ Where petition for injuries-averre tiat
“ILLL‘UIk ;EEAPIé‘hL (3513130, LI M plaintiff "incurred —— dollars in expense in
’ & ‘ . ~ medical treatment,” such allegation did not
(Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Feb. 4, 1013.) show that any sum was expended fQI' that DUI"
, ‘., . V __ a .- n34: __.. ‘ , , ,,_ pose. and didnot, therefore, authorize a recov—
1'Ctgl\.r,;.11;';§fSAD‘D LRI'OR (5 ‘1‘) ) lRAXSCRH I cry for such item of damage.
Where a petition alleged that a patent was , lEd- Notg.—h;or other cases, .599,“ Damages,
filed therewith, but the patent was not in the bent. D113" 3 41" DeC' Dlg' § 145' ]
record when the case was heard in the circuit 3. DAMAGES (§ 148*)—PERSONAL INJURIEs—
(inii-f', the clerk was Without authority to copy MEDICAL TREATMENT.
it into the transcript at the request of plain— Plaintiff in an action for injuries must
tlffs 001113801 after It had been fOUIld. allege the amount expended or incurred for
I_Ed. Note—For other cases. see Appeal and medical treatment, and, if .this amount is not
Error, (lent. Dig. §§ 2379, 2463, 26-45, 2956, known when the petition is filed, an amount
_ 2957; Dee. Dig. § 7135*] stifliCiently large to coverl the sum expcndcd
.) , ,, . ’ n q as _.. p .j and to be expended shoud be alleged under
" AWFAF. A31.) 11.1““)th Géb.) ,lR‘nbcmPT which plaintiff could recover a sum proved, not
—(,.0hl€li.(JTIOI\ i.\ Lou ER (loom. “Noam”. that )leaded
\thrc a copy of a patent was filed with " ‘, 9, _ ‘ I, ' ' . . ‘ ‘ ,
a petition and lost from the record thereafter, ,”‘“L DOLE'WILP} 0th)“ 950:, 5%, Damages,
it could be supplied by a proceeding for that (out. Dlg' b 41" De“ D13' 3 1*5' ]
purpose ‘m the ('m'lilt court 4. DAMAGES (§ 102*)——PLEADING—OBJECTIONS
Hid. Notewli‘or other cases, see Appeal and —\\'2\I\'ER B¥ VERDICT. '
Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803—2806; Dec. Dig. § “'licre evidence showingr the amount ex-
648.*] pended by a plaintiff for medical services for
. ' . ‘ injuries sustained was received without objec-
Appeal from Circuit Court, Magofhn County. tion, and no .ochction was taken to an instruc‘
Action between Isaac “Yillinlug and‘the tion :iutlioriznig a rccloveryltlierefolr, deffndant
., , ~ - , . . . , , could not, after yeuict, oiject tiat p aintill’
L‘ll'lt‘ll Mining. Lumber & 011 (")vlfllt'm-l' could not recover for medical expenses because
Judgment for the company, “lid “1111111115 the petition insufliciently alleged that plaintiff
appeals. Copy of patent stricken from the “incurred — (lOUHFS .1113X1J0U58 in media“
record on motion to condemn. . ”fitment; for “fell 1‘1-“mes“
[Ed l\ote.—h or other cases, see Damages,
Byrd & Howard. of Jackson, and S. M. Dec. Dig. §102.*]
Nickel], of Whitesbui'g, for appellant. John 5_ TRIM, (§§ 253, 290::)_BLASTING_,INJURY 're
H. Gardner, 0f Sillyci'svillc, for appellee. THIRD l’iiiisoNs—INsTiwerioxs. ~.
In an action for Injuries to plaintiff by a
, . , _ . . , stone thrown out by a blast set off by defend-
IIOYBSCALE. J. [1,2] Ill.lllc.1itt.lt1011lldt‘ ant, an instruction that if defendant blasted
ent Be. 364)”) is set up, and it is alleged along its right of way while grading the road—
‘For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

 44 , - 153 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER (Ky.
bed, and stone or other substances were thrown town, but on the opposite side of the river
els'flligst plaintiff and injured his 95:13], phjnflilif from the town. Ill other words, tlle places
regress; liftifiiii’e alanine eh wheh the hhehhe hehe done
'blast, and could have protected himself from about 300 feet apart. Before blasts were
} injury by seeking: a convenient sheltel'l, 1191‘ “:35 fired off, it was the custom of the company .
' the error cured by a subsequent confimt‘“: 11“ to give timely warning by blowing an engine
structlon that, if defendant gave reasonable . , k .
, warning of the approaching blast, it was plain- \vhlstle and also by the cry 0f “Elm!" and 0117:
. tiff‘s dingy-ft? llfseilrlezltiorllzlble gniigcniseilijbresd thids ficeasiimg the whistle signal was giyen,
(3131mm 1.1.9 “_0 0 50 “"e ‘ 9 all can y appellee. He testifies that,:
lil‘liléhilififtéilif .3:: rs: SESubl‘JJ-iifédf“i‘; When he heed the whehe he I
comd not recover. on the street in company With several per-
[Ed Note—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. sons, and, when the whistle was sounded,
Di";- §§ lilj§*3:33w 795—713, 715: 716, 718; DCC- all of them proceeded to seek a place of shel-
Dlg' 3§ 293’ 296%] ter, alld be, ill company with one or two oth- '
6‘ EXPLOSIVES (§ 12*) "‘ RIGHT To USE _‘ el‘s, walked between two buildinrrs, and was
BLASTING. . _C . 7
, Persons using explosives for blasting are standing there when he was struck ill the
i boulld to give reasonable warning before the eye by a small rock that came from a blast
3 explosion is made to all persons within the zone opposite the town, and also opposite the
- ;ifng}:‘l’)1§°tlill_fé'3,§ 6:301:11 01f]{littl’le‘fngnilf‘ignfifes 33?; place where he was standing; that he could
' of persons receiving the warning to use l‘eastpn. not tell whether the whistle was sounded to
' 9 able care to escape from or protect themselves give warning that a blast would be made at
" from: the danger. ‘ . the point opposite the town or at the place
C [Ld' Noni-TF0” 9th“ C3895! 5,00,12m1051ves’ below the town, alld that, under the illllll‘eS‘
ent. Dig. §S 9, 10, Dec. Dig. 5 11“] . . .
, , _j slon that the warnlllw was intended for a
7. CIRIAL (§ 29o~~)—INSTRUCTIONs—CONFLICT- ll~ 7. J 3 A D . , x 1,
1x0 INSTRUCTIONS. last to be made at the point below the
. e“ The rule that instructions must be consid- ‘ town. he sought a place of shelter that would
31.3; i}: Elg‘flhgt]? Will tnOtt'be applied to 01‘1'81 protect him from that blast, but not from a
, H ' . '91,} mg “15 l'ucil‘ms' , blast opposite the town.
- , 1 _ , H ‘ Ii.
Dilgndgfg %§;?f7‘zl $251 1311;? Ebggifml’ Cent. [1] The evidence for the appellant tended
to show that the whistle was sounded, and
Appeal from Circuit Court, Letcher County. tlle cry Of ”Fire!” given before the blast
ACUUH by M~ 0- Fields, Jr., against the was made, and that these signals and each
Lexington & Eastern Railway Company. and of them were warnings to persons in the -
others. Judgment f01‘ Illflilltiffe illld defende town and situated where appellee was that
ants appeal. RGVGI‘SCG, With (lil‘OCtiOUS- blasts were about to be made opposite or
Jouett & Jouett, of Winchester, and D. D. near the town, and that appellee was famil-
Fields & Son, of wllitesbul-g, for appellants. iar With these signals and the places at
S. B. Dishnlan, of l"-arhonrville, E. E. Hogg, which blasts were being made. From tillSe
of Covington, R. Monroe Fields, of Whites- it is argued that apllellee had no right to
burg, and Dishnlan, Tinsley & Dishman, of assume that these Signals were warning 0f
Barbourville, for appellee. a blast below the town. and, ill failing to
. seek some convenient place where he would
CARROLL, J. This is an appeal from a be protected from a blast opposite the town,
judgment for $4.000 ill the Letcher circuit he was guilty of contributory negligence.
court in favor of the appellee alld against Under the facts, we think it was a question
i tlle appellant company. _A small piece of for the jury to say whether the warning was
.rock thrown by a blast made by the appel- sullicient or not, and Whether—Or net appel-
lant company ill constructing a line of rail- lee exercised ordinary care to protect him-
way hit the appellee ill the eye, alld to re self from danger. An issue upon both of
' cover damages for the injury thus sustained these propositions was made ill the evidence,
he brought the action in which the judglllent and upon the subject of the care required to i
was obtained. A reversal is asked on the be exercised by appellee the jlll‘l‘ were Dl'OD'
ground that the verdict is flagrantly against erly instructed.
the evidence, for alleged error ill the instrue- [2] One objection urged to the judgment
tions, and in the admission of evidence, and is that the court erred in instructing the
because the verdict is excessive. jury that they might allow appellee the rea-
At the time the injuries were received sonable expense, if any, incurred in obtaining
by appellee he was in the town of Whites- medical treatment. This objection is based
burg. which is situated immediately on one on the ground that the petition did not au~
side of the North fork of the Kentucky rive thorize a recovery for this item of expense.
er, and the railroad company was engaged The petition averred that the plaintiff “in-
in blasting at a point directly opposite the curred —- dollars ill expense in medical
town, and about 300 feet from where appel- treatment of said injuries.” This averlnent,
lee was standing when he received the in- unless the defect ill failing to state the.
jury complained of. It was also engaged ill amount was cured, did not authorize a recov~
blasting at a poillt about 5100 feet below the cry for any expense 011 account of medical
'For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep‘r Indexe-

 Ky.) LEXINGTON a E. RY. co. v. FIELDS 45
treatment, as it did not show that any sum tion No. 1 they were told without any quali-
‘ . was expended for this purpose. Lexington ficzltion that if the appellant “by itself or its
1». Railway Co. v. Britton, 130 Ky. 676, 114 S. agents blasted or caused to be blasted with
W. 295. dynamite or powder placed in the rock 01'
[3] If a plaintiff in :1 case like this dc— dirt upon the right of way of the defendant,
sires to recover for medical expenses incur- the Lexington & Eastern Railway Company,
red in the treatment of the injuries be com- while grading said roudbed named in the
plains of, he should slate in his pleading petition, and exploded or caused to be ex-
the amount so expended, or the amount that ploded the said dynamite 01' p0Wder, which,
he has cxpended,andfhut it will be necessm when exploded, hurled or threw stone, grav-
ry to expend in securing the necessary medi— e1, 01' other substances against the plaintiff
cal attention as said in Blue Grass Traction and injured his eye, they will find for the
Co. v. lngles, 140 Ky. 488, 131 S. W. 278. plaintiff." 'gfliijllstruction ignored entirely
“In reference to special damages, it may the fact 1311,9111. issuebyfihe pleadings and
further be said that it sometimes happens evidence, that the plaintiff had ample wnrn- ‘
{but when the petition is riled, or when the illfefugfmt‘llenblast complained of bct'pre it was
trial is had, the plaintiff does not know the exploded, and could have protcctcd himself
total amount. that he will have to expend in from‘i‘fijury by Si‘Okin—l a convenient place of
effecting :1 cure, as he may yet be under the Shelter. It made the appellant liable if -
cure of a physician. In this event, the plcad- 313991198 Was injured by the blast, although ,
ing should state an amount large enough to he may have bud sufficient Warning to have
cover the sum that will be expended on this enabled him, in the exercise 0f 0“““31'3’ cure,
score, and the jury, the evidence justifying to have escaped injury. This instruction did
it, should be directed to award the plaintiff not correctly submit the law 0f the C359, and
such :1 sum, not exceeding the amount clziim- evidently the _court so concluded, as in an-
M' as will compensate him for the amountlomer instruction the jury were told that if
that he has expended or may thereafter nee! they believed from the evidence that the dc-
cssurily expend for this purpose.” fondant gave warning of the upprouclnng
[4] But, in answer to the objection thati blast by means of a whistle or otheru'lse,
the court erred in instructing the jury upon I ”Nd, such warning was reasonable, it'wus the
this subject, it is said by counsel for abbel- t plnmtnts duty to use reasonable diligence to
lee that no objection was made to the evi- escape from the danger, and they were tur-
dcncc introduced by appellee to show the [ ther instructed that if they believed that the
sum expended for medical services, and, this .' plaintiff, after being warned Of the blast,
being so, the defect in the petition was cured failed to exercise that degree 0f care and
and the instruction not open to the criticism caution WmCh a person Of his age, 041W”)? 1 ”',::
made on this score. \Ve think this position and experience might reasonably be expected ' ' ,5
well taken. Alt will be observed that the peti- to ordinarily use under the some Cll‘Culll-
lion sought a recovery for medical expenses, stances to escape from the effects 0f the
but: this element of damage was so dcfcctive- 1’1““? and that but for such failure he would
ly pleudcd as to not authorize the admission 1 “0t hilVe 109611 injured. they should find for
of evidence to show the amount expended. if V the defendant.
objection “to the eiiicleoce had been made} la] The law Upon this Subject is that,
But \vlicre‘fi‘ matter in issiieis defectively 1 while persons engaged in legitimate work-1
pleaded, and a party offers ev'idéan in sup- have the legal right to use explosives for the
port: o‘l’L'thc matter so dcfcctivcly pleaded, purpose of blasting, they are also under a
and llicrc is no objection to its introduction, [duty to give reasonable warning before the
the adverse party will not. bc board, after the 0XDIOSiOH is 11131de 1'0 311 persons ‘QEfliQ_.,Lhe
court has properly instructed the jury and r £0,118,“ danger from I‘OCKS 01‘ other substane
the verdict has been returned, to complain of v 08 that may be thI‘OWD by the blast and if
the admission of the evidence or the instruc— ‘ ”10y fail t0 give this warning, 311d $01119 per-
,iion based on if. It is. of course. a wcll- ‘ son entitled to warning is injured thereby,
settled general rule of practice tlint'instruc- the person causing the injury will be liable
lions should bc‘confincd to issues made by for the COHSE‘lUGDCGS Of his €103 It is like-
the pleadings, but it a mutter put in issue wise the duty of persons who receive the
by the evidence is defectivcly pleaded, or the warning to use reasonable diligenCe and care
scope of the pleading does not include tllc[t0 escape from 01‘ protect themselves from
offered evidence, the adverse party should the danger, and a failure to exercise this de-
object to the introduction of the evidence. Igrce of care and diligence will amount to
and, if he fails to do tine, will be deemed to such contributory negligence as will dcl’cut :1
have waived the error committed by the court | recovery. Gary V. Morrison, 129 Fed. 177, (5.3
in instructing the jury upon a matter that .U. C. A. .267, 65 L. R. A. (359; City of Paris‘;
the pleadings strictly construed did not nu— v. Commonwealth, 93 S. W. 907, 29 Ky. Law
thorize, although a general exception may be Rep; 483; L. & N. R. R. (30. v. Comnlonwcultli,‘~,
saved to the instruction. 1;! Bush, 390, 26 Am. Rep. 205; Blackwell v.
[5] Another complaint is that the court did Lynchburg & 'Durham Railway CO., 111 N. 0.
not properly instruct the jury. The court‘ 151, 10‘ S. E. 12, 17 L. It. A. 729, 32 Am. St.
gave to the jury six instructions. In instruc- Rep. 786. From this statement of the law

 46 153 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER (Ky.
applicable to cases like this, it is apparent 1 depends upon the question whether or not
that instruction No. 1, given by the court, appellee’s eye is permanently injured or his}
was erroneous. It is, however, insisted by eyesight permanently impaired. If it was,
counsel for appellee that the instructions are we would say the verdict was not excessive.
to be considered as a whole, and that the If it was not, it was excessive. The evi-
01'1‘01' iii instruction No. 1 was cured by the dence upon this subject is not satisfactory,
lllOdliiCfliiOll Of it contained in the other in- and fol~ this reason “re decline to express an
struction. opinion on this point.
5‘ I7] It is true that the COI'I‘BCUIOSS Of 5111 The judgment is reversed. with directions
f instruction is generally to be determined by for a new trial in conformity with this
‘ a consideration of all the instructions giv- opinion,
‘ cn. and that an error in one instruction may :::
. be cured by another. But it is doubtful if this
rule of practice can be properly applied to
these'iiish'iii'iioiils. ' 'Here the jury were told SLAUGHTER v. COMMONWEALTI‘T.
in one instruction, in peremptory language, (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Feb. 7. 1013.) .
to find for the plaintiff if they believed he 1, INDICTMENT AND INI-‘()R.\l.‘.TION (§ Mam
was injured by the blast. In another in- Fixinuiuji TQ VIN‘DOVRSE ‘\\'i'r.\'i:ssns ON IN-
struction they were told not to lind for him , DICAII‘I‘IIR§EEI¥Q£1EIL1WM be set aside where
if he had reasonable warning that the ex- there is no attempt to ,,,,“le with 01.. Code
plosioii was going to occur. The conflict l’rac. § 120. providing that the names of the
between these, imam-“(110115 is iiialiifest, and' witnesses shall be written on the indictment.

. _ . ..‘ .1 V _,p. "‘:. '.‘, ,'.r i.
there is no language in the lust. instruction wig (i'nfiiifiiiatidn‘fl ciétiiltliii‘gseg igo~Illiti§1§Uiljlizl
(lll'OCtlllg the attention of the juiy'to any Dig. § 31*]
other instruction IllOtllfyhlllg or explaining it. 2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1134*)fiQL‘ES’TIONS RF.-
Guided 1‘." 0110 IDStl‘UVUOW they “'91"? "0111' ViizwanLE—Itiiiri'sAL'ro Qt‘xsii IXI'UCTMICNT.

, polled to return a verdict for the plaintilt, Under Cr. Code Prat-.‘5‘ 281,. as amended
while, it they considered the other instruc- by ACES 1910; C- 3’3,- lJ1‘0\:lv0i1151011 21 SlleequeDt‘apDeul-
. . .7 . ‘ . i. __.q - f. ‘1‘ ‘ A) " '.‘
issues lllr this case was clearly incompetent inw, ConfeDig. 031$ gggfigéllaeggfjt15231019113111:
and we think clearly prejudicml. It Would § 11925,] ,
‘ have been just as admissible for the appellee _ . _ _
to have shown that other persons were hit Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian
by rocks thrown by blasts and to have per— County. ,
miited these persons to relate the extent of tom Slaughter ‘3'“? “”1“th Of murder,
;tlleii‘ injuries. Manifestly this evidence, and he “PDQ“IS- ,A‘Ufllmt‘d- ‘
iwliich conduced to indicate that the company See, also, “9 1‘5" U, 1’17 5‘ W. 701'
lengaged iii the blastingr was reckless and in— Alvin H. Clark and Linton & Clark, both
different of the rights of others, was calcu- of Hopkiiisville, for appellant. James Gur-
ilated to prejudice the iiiiiidsof the jury. Uii- nett, Atty. Geii., D. 0. Myatt, Asst. .'ttty.
der the pleadings, the blasting being, admit- Gen, and C. 11. Bush, Trimble & Bell, and
ted. there were only three issues in the case: Breathitt & Brcatliitt, all of Hopkinsville, for
(1) Did theappellee have reasonable warning the Commonwealth.
that the blast. was going to be made, and
could he. by the exercise of ordinary care, CLAY, C. On February 4, 1912, Tom
have sought a place of protection? (2) Did Slaughter, a negro boy 19 years of age, shot.
be, after receiving,r such warning, exercise and killed Lee Jenkins, {1 white man 48 years
reasonable care to shelter himself so as to of age. On the iirst trial of the case, the
avoid the injury? (3) The extent of his in- jury found Slaughter guilty of murder, and
juries. To these issues the evidence should fixed his punishment at death. From a jiidg<
have been confined. iiient entered in conformity with the verdict
We are alsourged to reverse the judgment he prosecuted an appeal. The judgment was
upon the ground that the verdict is exces- reversed. and the cause remanded for a new
sive. As to this, we may say that the ques trial. Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 149 Ky.
tion whether or not the verdict is exceSSive 5, 147 S. W. 751. On the return of the case,
____________________—_—__——-——————'—————'"——‘—‘
'For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

 / / (K .~' ,- / '/
I // ' ‘  (I
..~ .
‘ T K
'. A. ' v" " , .-~
LLL“ J: \J .l , .I.. :'....99
r, L i _ ,’,,, -...._,.,VNKL,L‘.H..;..L ‘.“
'i .4 n '-r kL‘ ,‘ ,. 9 L)": 1‘ 9 -I "\ —4L|I.‘v".11 L4 J _ikx\. '
"’. ‘., ...L _.. ”..._
. , .. y,
.. . . 5 ..J a
‘. 1 . .:. .=‘. . "- .9 _..,,“; ,.‘. ._. . ,5 ., .'. ,.._.r: --._., ., " _ v .».». . r1 gw ,_ .1..1.
[.:3 ..‘.L: .424 (,n."‘..'v_w ..J,” __ a _.L.:-.}:.‘.:._ Elm-2,13 _LL/ :._;__ .._.1: 6w“.
- 4 . -~ . '1 ‘1 ~ -v , ~~. - - -. A. , 4 \ ..; . .
._‘...“ . . ..,,,.“ . ._:... .::. . j - ‘~‘.L";':"'“‘ ‘_.)???”
'..‘, .'_.:: .,.. x
..-1. q » _J...v‘_:p°
'7‘ ‘_'- _ ‘,_,!._?.'.L' , '..,, ,~‘ 'V ., .. 7,, , .L,, ‘,. , ‘.'.. " " :"1
.:3“. ..:;; Li .,‘_:-1“ ~.;: k4 . : ..‘ . _. ~ 7 M.,.
.’..’? ,"‘»? ‘_- _ 3.1, .1,:, »‘ (r.‘ : 7.“; -: , ”_., ‘_ ., ~'t‘,'\‘ L ,.,-'.W :.. «I _.’,- .»- v. ;- . .-. »,'» .
_.L\».,_~» 5 .. n 9 . 1 .. ». . ..._. .:.. _, n .. ._..-. Q. m I1.-G 9 .4 _.- JL_I.. .,‘ J ._ .. 4: .- m
T . 7 . 4' . ,7 I.,. .,,. _.....~ r ,.1. ._ L - ' _ _ :.: ..‘. _ ~ a .. .' ._ “.r .-. '3
..J 3 "1 : I~-f,' .I..T.'\.-' .L {11; .=‘;L‘v ‘.I: C, ‘..rL‘ L.‘ 1;\.' ‘»_~ .., _ ‘_.-.L ‘.‘.L .L.. . KI» ..‘. ‘I " ..Lh'l;
"5 ’51' m '3”? "3 ’,"Ev‘: m 4. ~~. ' . . ~13 ' 1' '- ...
- .4 u ~‘.J.,J_ »..- —<,),. ~J_‘.x 51‘ ...'; .v 4_L‘ .,‘ .,Vv »,.|._.-.-»
“5,1,; Wail-'3‘: ‘LLL: C ’,.: .. ;, 11134;: Li \ ‘2‘.”2.‘ .‘i. '1 '.".‘rCy’V
~- 9 - -~ ~ w L, a. ~_ ,
. .,.“ ." :,. L .'.‘. . ,. .”.. ,. '.‘ “ .‘. . . ., TW,LI .44. , .,‘ .’4‘. .4.....-H, ’\
. 2‘.‘-1..a;. ~ ..L .<«.__._._: . . ..'. .»'/Lg. LL] :,x..:-’.«.z- S
'.““ II ;‘\ ,"' ‘I' 'T I;’“? 5“ ', ‘." ‘ T IT 7 I' 'I,- N." "'-’v‘ 7" ,."v ‘ ‘ “ ' ’I” I ‘.:“r‘ ‘ ".'-"‘1‘“ 7 ‘T‘
.V . ,‘, i. .. .~_L .J.“, _ ,i 'L‘."'T : 4‘. it ~ .; \4 J_. \~ Lhr .~ \I “.L. ,_ .. -L‘_. L- ~, 9
, ~ . v - . .4 u > , i _ v _ _ »- . r v-w
.11; ~‘. ':"1-"L1' , »:- . :,.- ~ ‘ >17 f“ N “‘1“
'v .”.»an r‘ ‘_./_‘.-. :‘.}. .‘ .‘.‘. ,.., ‘= , -. H .‘.:. .. 7.,4 '..’.I " _., ." ..'.-. ..~.V.\:_x...~_
. / k4 -, \ »:‘-“.;, i . L4 .)Q_.- ._ '60—- x. _L’ . .. Li 9 . ”:__ ‘.: -_.~ _ . 24;" ~l"~}..1;'«;.3.v59
4.": .~‘ ‘ . - o .L . “ » .‘~ _,. ,L .j.~ .‘ ~1.... .1.: ,.I?
I». I.‘- «f. LL r.;_-l‘;.L;J'..' '.‘ '. V’xb: '_x} ”I. 7 .‘. '.. _v; .\ v.1 K_.rt. ;ILFLJ L .~ "'_.; .7: ,'.‘. ..:;- 93.1..
' . A...'.. ' .4 ~_.!..... " L .7 m..- r. .'2 In... ' ,-,...u ,.'. ...L L..”! ..L
\'“ '.: A.) 0" 3,5}; I.‘.Lrw.’ "f .‘,.“? .'. 3: L 4 . . '.'.. L. ._1 '\ .'..'- :k ;'- Ii. 3,. 'I.-3' wk Liz.
“3_3q... fl ,’3 ~‘.. _ ,,, _' . ,,.]..‘inyz, _.",T‘,, . . V. \ i .I.-'_,z. .. ..,._... _ v .f.‘ I
"'~'. -I~-IA"“(-'-'QT Ijn :1: .. .:I/‘9 -'» 2‘ L’AL 1J.I-U-I;._I.., \ .‘..‘ ~I~ «In -U 'I.I»? .:LL. ‘K.»: ii... ‘ L:LLLQrJ \)..I.
,~ ~~. hm” ...T- ... T * v, 4'-". ' .~. . '.. . . .- 4.. 4. __,. .. . . .. _ I. ~
(‘.1: 1.4;; :L.:.i.:l,'.a.(‘;.- .4.-10 L V = :‘.';<.‘ .411; .,. n; 37175313 ‘ .
,',»...x ,, -_-j n .'..1 A‘. L .< L‘,‘ .._.“ ._ . . .‘ _ ' "
_ y.» .»‘. ..;,‘s ‘1'.»I.v.l,'. _'.J‘. 1. ,LL ' ’J4_\‘... _,‘AV. I’tl‘ G
" .I.. ,_ ,'.'. ,rn. _.I. .'.‘ , _1.. ..WL. ,» - , .. ., .L: .-:-1 .4 .- ...I. '.. J.._.
.‘L 1.".[15 -_. \I."_~-»sl in..." . .,1 Um ”I.. , Wu. '\._ 3.:-LI." .. .)L” L.L/.‘.': L.L}. J;.: :4 1.1 ”US:—
Ln.) r.*_ '.1... _5‘. .,‘ ”I._; ,i ..L .'.: 1. .— I. ':.A- . _. .._‘.Jra . L v. , .. ‘.. :3 .'.1.
.‘C'J I.' .4 .'. J:..‘.‘ {1_. ».l..v'..C-:=u.i.“.v’.L KV.‘:- ‘J ' .' .,1; 2‘.‘... 11.7,.i.'.'_1..-.,{ :.I-1mm. ..1/..'1,:.. 1.43.0
-. .‘ . -.~.x. -.. . .:. '1 .\.; .T o 4“ ' :1.‘,1 '._/'.'. Z. Ciao-:;:» 2.1;. 4113410.
"'.L. . . .'.4... .“. “Fun".‘r'
- ., 4. :f v‘.-.'_ m...” U 4LL." ,, 9
(Hui-.. /»
' I
4; ”.. .
:.;-nim'vfxla

 \\
‘ EDWARD S.JOUETT
’ BEVERLEY R.JOUETT JOUETT & JOUETT '
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW _
202-205 MEELDOWNEY BLDG.
WINCHESTER,KY. (u
‘muivj. bull, 1.913.
Fleids -V.— , -H-~»;: .._;
“_ _ T . %L I .‘«,“ .‘..
Fod_etL-Qoagguy Co. I ‘ /K,.
5 ./ ,’.’ ‘.']: \‘1 ‘
2' , i
' ’. : A . ; :1; ‘ ;
I, 1 ‘ - I“ I : . ,’_I_ ,4,
g _, F119 W999
( 1:17,” ‘/,
Judge Srmuel T. Wllson, ‘»*‘ ” ‘ “I”
--m, ”L.,—\- '.,v
Lanlflbuufl, ny.
«m 5‘
Bea; blr,—
. I‘ .;, -., fl - «. . in ‘1-5- W4 ..:‘.
I Web In conierencc ultp hr. Do weuv Jaggeruay
' . n. 4. - A,» ': NH» .. 1 HH ._. ,V-HH‘ H . .L.
1gkrebaxu 9w yhe _bvve hmtuer, _n: .“ey 919 very uhAloufi for uhe
. ' ' .- _,. . .‘. ‘._. £- ,. ,_ .1. ..,. .0: ,‘r;
lethu LO! ngume 0n venuc b0 Ls ;IluL. ,
A
W , ~— —H Hump-u ‘ — f‘ “"1' ‘ H1 '-‘—'.—H.-. ‘
he 5,?‘fle me n EH)I=_-,\;,g (Lee; 0:. \.cuglthZ’la-n. 1111. ;Iuatlon
‘ ‘.. ,.,‘H ,7 .L. 71' '.: ,‘., -. '3?" ' 'H ‘ ‘ .H. mm 7- —- . , - V
1n lebflrh go Alelds‘ COHHCOLIwM 1n Inluesoarg, HHL I feel Inclined
w '7 H :— ‘, w-H H‘H . -‘.\-‘. "H 1‘»" HH -‘—~r.-'H Hm ~~ “
to selleve anJ upon the :Lou:&; w Icw J8 CM“ ngke thy“ JWLSe ButIer
woulfl grant the chnnxe, but if he did not, I helipfe it Jaild Be
reversible error.
“I h-«,, ,1 H? .., 77 .‘-“,Hth ,',A _ , ~ ._
I ‘Leurnewa Iro;;; r. Doigiett w..u 1¢A;,9131xrt;ff's
m .- , 'H- - .~ - . H... H—'. 14",: - -. a v“. H “H — -‘-7.
urother, FGIIA Flelvs, IS pflutdflbuer pt Ju;;e=h4;b, 9nd that uxe
F1933 are rather? to 1:10:39 "EQI‘SONS in Fletcher County timn any
.4.",H .4 -",..,..‘ . La». .1." ,H - ' -~' ’1‘-H .,- H-HA- ,.- .1 H-- -‘n.""
Dude; fidnzlly, tnuuu ”Jay tafla_pollticuuwflr SfifJuU, “Ix, QfHCiJAAXLLy
. J_. ’ . 3 .~'. ' , N . . . — -
COILQE'J. tle pcl¢.;1;n3 a? ‘J;e ‘ioznlty.
- - “ .~J- ‘L'“ \ r "1‘ ,- . v v ‘~‘ ‘ ‘ 11- ~, ...2 »‘ '--

f I feel Luau U39 Allebwtlfld thcL I nvwe m Ce In
)the netltlon relpzive t= the L. & E, is such-fihrt it coulfi not af-
.4. ', - I, ",,.,H ,.,‘ 7 , H-Hr.. .. :,_ . ‘..

E feeU tne Ballrord pmze¢fter, find I no not ;nai to o; hayinlng
i 1. J. . . * ' 4.? . , A. .0.“ ~ .L.".