xt73bk16mf8w_426 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. [295] Joe Campbell v. L&E, Perry Circuit Court text [295] Joe Campbell v. L&E, Perry Circuit Court 2016 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/51w14/Box_43/Folder_6/4650.pdf section false xt73bk16mf8w_426 xt73bk16mf8w ., r; *‘. I”
Julia 1. 1~»~:1~«.
v _. -
i4; ’1; _u‘i'7301’i'll‘fn, ;..-$31.,
\, ,.' 'E‘_“,.g, ~ V. ‘ ‘ t" I? " .’x
;deLn 44')“; u. 41L "3}. , .1 L': Jxl -. -. a: ,.1
. . 7. .,_»
. J'Jl‘ LFR‘V.L .‘..C' A)! a
:.;LLIAULLHA \JJL~wJ_K./£'t.3lA‘ -,.u 1!; 0.x. ,'. 1-222 ’21.‘ ux M‘s) ,'..L'sh ,L""‘Lm.5

- » . ' . .. ' ». ,,., ‘ f - .' - .. ..‘“ ‘,.,— .7 ‘ ': V .. JV . ,‘. ; ~ ‘_ . ,
J.1<.==.' v-FHLLUM, (..' .LU; ‘H l): _L'J'W'Jﬂlr.’ m.» “)..U :11I. .LH “1:" (~1541 a}: 50;.”
-‘ . x. ‘ ‘ L ,z— ',, ‘_. ‘_"'. v - .. , ‘ .."“ .'. v
biLx-zmtu '.:-um L. 0.1. avg V:.:.ula:ud<; V.. \.' . ..;-"gm. . -’i?'.| H. :..:w‘: Vt: um“ LC“
-x‘ if" ’.‘ ”‘.. ‘ V_ 4- .‘« - ‘ .~. 3,,. " h: '| ‘, "l’1<[ " 1's?" " A‘ ' "(I‘"
3' 3.x)": uU Lxl'y ‘-.a_ ~_>,:,.-1_.:; :;:.- ‘.J ' ' I'. 5;.“). .L VJ', “I tr'dlukl ,A\' ' V 121‘“ ..\...x

, ,
.‘. :1‘ , . ~.-,..~.,~—\ ( . r'. .' ( ‘ ,.‘
.~., lL' LUJI .. «LUINHAL, HAM; x.-'L:‘;! i“ .3' ,".«u_\,;.‘::,v ,‘.“ J 4.11: l.".»,: _: :.:h 1 -! ‘; _5' he

“ '~ ‘.‘ , - g :7 \‘ . ~.;...r..17 ».. .n ”,,.,." ,, .,‘—‘.“‘
Ct.'.!a\;’~.3,;_’_»5‘\.l. :;:», L, gutswsb m, L.LL. 'I.-L4-:C‘x: "I.....l 5m- _I_U, ‘:1' ; “‘}‘,u x u-Cw’twﬂml
U"; L 1. 7 ”13L .‘.:.J’Lu \\.‘I'Q {:1:-"..“ J.a,i .,,L‘L‘ '.': 133.031.

104” CIVIL-.:I ;VOIQI ‘.’

GEjCG-s

v I

, . ’ . “I

e.)- ore-1:701. .,

 ‘T V f I‘
aunt,- 1;, 121R.
,,
. T? C 37? .1. . . W -.. ",‘..
..._essrs. wood-on L.‘. .{a’L01é5.,',(.L, ‘ '
71,”, ,- rum ”'1
“‘.: mun; ».:.ufhw‘ahy; ‘

WEI: “t ‘.L-:Eﬂdﬂ.

'1‘,,TH_ ,,..u? «,“‘ W1 .‘ 1_, ”,"")?-'l' ._, ',,A ‘ ,, x .7 . , .' .,7 ._‘ .»- f

“A”... JJ. WC .'.J Lu “n “We, w:t«mnlhg ‘,QTILhrJI‘ :2an 2 (toll); en
0%,?“ Di, 1.;}: 11'; (;‘.-‘.:? c:"’,.-_:..? ()..I UL) va«1_--x)r..‘.:_3. V'. U ”A; -2 .?a;‘.-’,,‘.)fv=n. ill 390.123"
\:, 347 "A ..’. V.‘ ..‘ C,“ v , ., _ ‘ . " ‘ '
u 1.; :11”: 5; L..» ,a b, .. ”JR, .,I- . u...- w-miw fun: 4 :::‘1 103"“!‘il‘fa‘t.{3}" Uhr'? 'V’OTPChTJF.‘
bu .»P U.- v'L ‘.L-z _Lt3e ajfm’l-iﬁium uJ. )1}. iii .L(2UUL‘I.‘*.1L’,:€' LLL)": “ Viii‘ 1'71"" .

L a ._ Cg aw,‘ ‘
*1“ ,_ ,» 3 .,
‘4\;3~ u).l( L.:; gawk-.‘-
. ‘5'
-? n '1' .
. 45.3.. 1 U,
, ‘ , "
\I’x,':.‘..x,1,w\:_:_ '

 “if,“
IAILEY P. WOOTTON JESSE MORGAN . "r ' ’.,
WOOTTON & MORGAN ' " ~»‘ ".- " "
gitntmgwubﬁhm ,1 . r ' \ ‘ .
HAZARD, KY. A’A/09v?» A2 I) ‘ ”a. '7 ,
June ll, 1015.
1:. Samuel M. Wilson,
Lexington, Kentucky.
Dear Sir:
Sometime ago we received the enclosed voucher from
theL & N R R Co. amounting to $5.65, covering costs in the
case of Joe Campbell v. L d E Ry Co. in Ferry Circuit Court.
We have been holding this voucher, as the Clerk got some
of his cost bilh‘wrong, and when sending in same to you for
payment we inadvertently overlooked tlis matter.
We have now gotten this matter adjusted with him,
and have his records properly endorsed showing payment. This
voucher for $5.65, which we are returning, was to pay defend—
ant's cost in the case of Joe Campbell v. L & E Ry Co., hut ,
. this cost was paid out of another voucher, and is now fully
settled. We are also enclosing you the Clerk's receipt for
the amount of $5.65, cost in this case, so your records will
be clear.
‘ We trust this will sxtisfectorily explain this
matter, but if not, we will advise more fully.
Yours Very truly,
”PM pk 772%‘7‘74/J1/
WWR-r ‘

 PERRY CIRCUIT COURT
JOE CANPJELL, By KLIMUB
CAEPBELL, PLAIKTIFF
VS. TAXAEIUL 03 0089.
14.33 Li I 3.30 ’:‘ 0:5 61: 31)-; 5 ‘33.: 12116
RAILUAY CGJPAHY, DEEEHDALE
1913, Oct.~12th. Deien ant
To Inﬁoxinﬁ 10d Zoting Att'ys, 10¢ $0.20
Filing Lonurror 15$ order 30¢ 45
Tiling ipeoial Iquurror 15¢ order 50¢ .45
Lotion 15¢ order 30; .45
Order subnittinf or Loiinn .30
Order Sust:inin9 13tion .30
Order jottinp 10: 13131 .50
5 Sub eonas in: jei't. .90
filimﬁ Agswor 155 order 50¢ .45
Ono—half of ﬂmfunoljnf Jay: .50
Recording v:r&iot of jury .25
Judgment for Doienﬁant .50
Taxing Cont and filinf yayors .60
Defendant's Clark's ooot i 5.65
o
A copy atteot:
g i? ' 7
” Clerk.
' ,
Received of ﬁhe Louisville & Eashville ﬁrilroad
Company, in full amount of the above defenﬂant'o cost of
$5.65, in tho case of Joe Campbell v. L & B By Co., Perry
Circuit Court, this ﬁhe 34th day of April, 1915, and receipt _
so endorseﬂ on my records.
' . Afj::4;i§zgzj%igzéigi;i . ‘_.:gi
\ C or erry roult our ‘,1;
, , . ‘ _Qﬁ,

 ﬂ ' April 7, 1915.
C C. :1.. lioorrmn, Eta-:1.,
Louisville, (y.
Eear Sir:
Herewith, I hand you copy 0f ?atition, copy of Judgment
‘nd Clerk's Bill of Costs in the case of Joe Campbell, by Rlihue
Campbell, v. L & 3, in Perry Circuit Court. I have novroveﬁ the
bill for Gofcn?ant’n CO‘tS, unnuntiug to $5.35, an? ask that voucher
for same may iSSue furthvith in.fnvur of ice Tuniel, Clark of the
Perry Circuit Court.
Yours truly],
enc.
Sin/a ‘
Counsel.
:4 5
x3 ; '

 '1 717/;
nAlLEYI- wooTYors ‘ {/7 I ‘ Jcss: MORGAN
WOOTTON & MORGAN
Affutuegsmt-gzmt
HAZARD. KY.
Oct. 22, 191?.
. I‘VZI'. Samuel " Wilson,
Lexington, Ky.
Dear Sir;
Enclosed find copy of the case of Joe Cwnobell 8:0. vs
Lexinr‘ n L.‘ ~ 1: ' -— '7 '
Loo & Mae tern 3.111Lay Company, We are sendlng you
this at the request of Mr. TiCDowell.
YOUTES Very Lruly,
/' (r
. , //5*#5Ch V Z'Z‘
.~;PKv//CA. / 6&7

 / / /" /W / /' /
.,. (”iv/y zwr ////// (ﬂu /’/’// ’. //// 1//’/// /;/‘///////y;
1 z ” / , / ‘ z
_.  ‘ 5': , ‘ // /// x/ i,
n/K’l/I’I'KI/ /////'/:,/ ~
0 //-., //4Q%W/1 / / . ﬂ / I J 7
372/1077/([’//(Ull;/7(’7. -”1-7) y/ﬂ/ﬂﬁv //)
./ 5
October 3-;-3m, 1912.
E’Sootton 5'; 'iorgem, @M/f /»{
HaZII‘Ci, 52y.
Dear Sims:-
“11101 osed nlease finﬁ. sumnons saved on our Agent at hazard,
or ”Weber 16%, 1'11 the case of Joe Campbell against ﬁhis Comp-any.
A vv .- ‘. ...
‘-"ill vou kindlv look after our interest in ﬁshis case, fozwarulng 0051163
of she 'Detition to Judge ‘riilson and W me.
fours truly,
[In H
V: ’»‘-‘1 " :i;-‘“"’” m ”‘». »»1 ff " i n .,
r. l :‘g ﬁg ‘-».;K:,-' "i/ ‘.‘: I {5": ska-ﬁéi" :5 ,
'15 :3 19w (1,! 4: 1. x] .1
General -1831 agar.
311103..
CODY ”=20
7 , Judge 3.2.1.13113011, City.
I

 Form 162 LAW Dl-ZI‘AR'I‘MENT
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY [ I
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY AT_.:::'_>L;'-SELL’£, I;'.LLLIZLIEL; W
v~’~‘~ v’lw 9pm": A
B. D. WARFIELD, 17 L»..; (,,,, of I, ‘3 be ,9] _-

District 1\H0rn0y.

In Me msc of}Joe "‘3"" ‘5 ”"'G' ’ , 715., w L n " b , A
mfg/10M”; Pratccdz'ﬁg‘s were Izaa’ at Me, .;‘eo'2't-'i::':“oo:3 333:3“).7411 Tam, 191 4
of l/IEL 23033337 Gil‘Glﬂt A Cour! of “333377 ,Comzl}.

DATE PROCEEDINGS
1311;: 35:11:30 1'31“."171'14“ ' ": ."IT‘TJ. ,‘271f' ;"i-J: trial , in? 3.561; or
-~ - -« . r- ~ J.‘ ., .. .r.~ .". .. onion.” ,,,.nqnﬁ n ,,,
"USO 0735’. 0:130 C‘I‘I. II?) a: ‘. j:;; I’.: 7:89 ;-fo ,3, 1.; ,y , LILLLILOL'. ...
70176.1 :;L; 11‘-3;: 1:310 do?o;1c“.:‘;“..'i: . ”/ W
_ %_¢L/é{/0—7 0A l/ﬂj’l .(111, 7,
[SIGNED]. ’L/ _ /~/ : 1"
Attorney v Railroad 00.
M?1. Give date of ﬁling all pleadings, and their character, as petition, etc, etc.
2. Give date of all proceedings, such as motions to strike out for new trial, etc., etc.
3. In reporting a continuance, state at Whose cost.
4. In reporting ajudgment, state date and amount of judgment. If appeal be taken, state by which party, and Whether
bill of exceptions has been ﬁled; if not ﬁled, what time, if any, has been allowed for ﬁling.

 . .

- ‘ ,_. nu "-r‘ r- .
/\ 4— '\.\ A ﬂu. .. 1
V0 JQ-H-J .. ..; ;..)... .

‘,. _. o :.L . ‘.‘ ' '... u . ";.1. . . ., ._.v.. '- A

1‘ ,. ‘ ‘ A. . ., . . ‘, .‘~ . 1 ,n . . .
,<,.‘_. _ :.. w ' )‘/‘.-A)J; .A‘), le l, / , ,-. {;‘.K. “‘.‘ ‘.w,
.‘r 1:1"’ 1 L’ n

=‘. ‘.'1 . ”.‘

‘(h‘ :‘-",.‘. ‘... -

_ . A,

‘ 4
-_ ~< ...‘ ».VE. >~ VV.. . . ,. .. o‘ ' _ ‘ ' 7.‘ ‘ ) .' r “ ‘ i l V
. : a) , x = l ‘ , > ‘ 2 1'
._ ., L .x... 1 , I; .‘., . A I, _ .,I,

_ ‘ ¥ . . r_ _. . _‘_ .. . L, _, 1 _ .. ‘ , . , . . 1» .. n

_ x . ‘_‘ _. ‘. ‘.V , a-‘_‘,. .. A. r o. o . -V ,.,. .-, o ‘ . , { ..

.7.~,:; 1m.'_'\ “.‘_.- I J ‘uﬁ. , . )‘ (‘.‘ 2 ‘}, . 5 .~‘1’j . ,... .' w ‘.',r )..,
»- y «.7 . o M -, -. . . A . ‘. , o

’ M ‘.V" . V \ 1‘, .:,. _ V- V . , ‘ ... ,. ,.‘- . - ‘7 ,
.

A _'j ”...',“ -. H '..‘V, "“-,--,-- .' .\ .:..‘ . " ,,, " . . ,“ m . ' .‘ _- _o ..
,', _ , .I.; w; '1.;‘2 , J.;». M _‘(3 r , . _.' ..1: _ z .- m
‘ -_ -~ -, 7 , \ ,. n »v w x V » - -» . .-

,vn. ~- ~ »v-r‘v‘x ‘.~ ,, --. ,« ; - — —
_v.. . -,§ . :‘.(-/U \«ou _.' ;‘.1‘ ‘ {wix‘A \ ,V .‘ . ' ,_.U' . . q 'I‘,‘ _..f..(_‘

w .
Q(‘ (’I' ' ﬂ r .
,u‘..".’18h00 .

. V ,. . 7‘ . .. . . .

-1 ."‘“ .I. _ .._ . .o ”L A}... ._ ‘_'”, ...‘ ..‘”. ’7 ‘ Av».l-4‘..‘ [._._ ,. .. ‘..
.‘.,o--.--VA . -.l ’2 ) ,«rxh _‘ ~M ‘,-r.-V. ,'«,.‘. ._~, ‘..'4,
jVAfnﬂlo, _,\ ..‘. ‘3"..I.“ Y“ V) ;o I" . u I'.: : A, 4 . ‘V‘ . 173‘” .,

,. .,, 9 ., ,_ /§. 1 .Ax '._ A . .“», . I . '_' 4' \ 4,. .-._~"
.1. _ J .. = ,~_,
.'-\"" (’.'
. 7 1'
I
‘_._7. ,_ ~. ‘ \ ..'“
_. .- _v. _ .\.n ‘.> ‘(.'l_a

 0
Or
PERRY CIRCUIT COURT.
JOe Cempbell, by Elihue Campbell
as next friend, Plaintiff.

Vs/ JUDGMENT.

Lexington s Ea.tern Railway Company, Defendant.

This cause came on for trial and both laintiff and defnndant
announcing ready, then came the followinn jury, viz: Herve Hensley
Jake frost, Lee irashesrs, John Comhc, Joe Cornett, Ens Walker, Tils
Campbe 1, James Evrﬁs, Jim Napier, Joe Standifer, Joe Cornett, Jr.,
Gleve Walker each of whom were inali ied by the Court and accepted
by the parties end were duly sworn by the Court as the jury in this
case. The care was the: rteted to the jur" both for plaintiff and
defendant and the jury after hearing all of the evidence 0 fered by
both parties the instructions oi the Seurt and the argument of coun—
sel reported in egen Court the following verdict: "We, tle jollowing
jury do agree and find for the defendent”..Lee Jrashear, Joe Standi-
fcr, Joe Cornett, Jacob Frost, Wilson Caupbell, Russel Walker, Cleve
Welh>r, H. C. Hensley, J. L. Combs”.

The Court upon the foregoing verdict ndjudges thrt the plain—
tiff's petition be dismissed and that the defendant heVe judgient for
its costs herein expended and this cause is now stricken fror the
docket.

 J. BURTON FAULKNER
SHORTHAND REPORTER .
LEXINGTON, KY. WW"
‘ A”;
"’7? "If: M"
. 1 P1212311 IfiIT-tll‘flfIij,‘ 0017:1211.
J00 Camuholl nuéinh b1 etc. Plaintiff
2 A. x v a a
5 vs. BEIGE/1T.- .::-2:221:31?
4
Lexington & Nantnrn Railway Company, Defnnannt.
5
6
7 Dafnndnnﬁ, Lexington & antmrn Railway Company,
8 dewurrw apociully to plaintiff's pvtition "\nn the
9 ground th‘t the plrinﬁiff, Jon Cnmnbmll suing by
Hlihuo Camnbell mg him nnzt friwnd has not 1932] capacity
10 ‘
to sue. nor does the r‘rht of said Tlihun Canphe?1 ﬁo
. ll .
prosecute this action 23 nnzﬁ friwnd for Jon Canpbnll
l2 . _
appn:r from the notation.
13
14
15 ,2 _.22~-.2_2-Mm
Counﬁnl for Defonﬁanﬁ.
16 4
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.-
25
26
27
28 .
29 .
50

 .J.BURTON FAULKNER
SHORTHAND REPORTER _
LEXINGTON. KV,
--s .1;.. w}
. 1 FERRY CIRCUIT COURT.
2 Joe (3811111111913. suing; by, 9.130., Plaintiff,
5 vs, 3:211:1311131 :2:-2:z1:11:—1:‘11 2
4
Lexington 8; Buster-n Railway Company, Dcfond: 111;.
5
6 .
\ n. -1 "' ' J. n '3 ' . . .
J 4.2 (L:.. 1‘.: .’.' ....n V . :3 .u»:‘ 3; .)LL .._.- - 1.1,,2‘1.‘ ;1
'7 1m (m ”I”‘, 0v7n1_1(m c *7 (170711 '11??? (‘V‘I'IT‘TPLM
8 die-1.711.111: generally 1:0 11311711112111? ‘1'; 1?ot1t'30n upon ”one arr-mud
9 that {187:0 does not 11117139. facts sufficient to constitute
10 any 021115.19 01’? action 1371:3112“: thiu defendzgmtn
11 1-_1...“ -_ .1.--..
12
13 1 1 1 +
I l).’.. .1. .:. ‘11. 1 1 (.‘., Uu
(‘onnr'r‘l ‘0‘" '«efoncrn
l4
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
2'7
28
29
50

 .J. BURTON FAULKNER
SHORTHAND REPORTER ”,.,'
LEXINGTON, KY. "
.in 23: 'f‘?
. 1 133mm CIRCUIT COURT.
2 Joe Campbell suing by, etc., Plainﬁiff’
5 vs“ marries: TI“ :'wrrzzmx '
4
5 Lexington a:Rastern Railway Company, Defendﬂﬁt.
6
7 The ﬁofendant, Lexington & Eastern “eilway
8 Comp ny,movos ﬁhe Ceurt ﬁo strike Tran the plaintiff'e
9 Petition the following parts thereof, to—wit:
10 1. The word ”exceedingly” in the sixteenth line from
11 the bottom of ﬁne second p530 of Rafa petit’on.
12 2. Commencing in the ninth line from the bottom of the
13 second page, in eaiﬂ petition, with the wares ”he says
14 further”. etc., down to una end‘ng with the words in the
15 sixth aha seventh linee fron the ten of the third prge,
1 in the said petition ”TrOw the dangers of the following
6
.i ' 'Y
«511721171 .*
l7
5. The words in ﬁho eleventh line iron ﬁhe top of ﬁaid
18
third name as follows, viz: "aha was altogether a bad niece
19 '
of track.”
20 ' *
nefenﬂant bases its motion aforeeald upon uhe
21 J n . \' .. 1n 7: ntnfqv‘vpr‘r‘i‘ TN} ‘\':'1("Ol] "T
22 gramme than the aloreeevd horas an“ m “.‘“,lgh «- w ..
. ..' .‘.. ‘ - ‘ r o I ‘1‘; ‘3 4 . 1')”"" Dr J- he
incompetent,111elevant, 1mmater1el bnu “m1 up no
23 .
allew d in eeia pet"t?0n-
24 l
25
ﬁlm“”“~0wmw~WWMWMWW“M
26 , 4. J-
Counsel for deiondrnu.
2'7
28
29
50

 J. BURTON FAULKNER
SHORTHAND REPORTER
LEXINGTON, KY.
1 PERRY CIRCUIT} come.
I.
2 Joe Campbell suing by, etc., Plajnﬁiff,
3 vs. MOTION TO WAKE MORE SPECIFIC
4
Lexington & Eastern Railway Company_ Defendant.
5
6 .
7 Defendant, Lexington ﬂ-antorn Railway Com—
8 puny, moves the Court to require plaintiff to make his
9 petition more certain and Specific in the following parti-
10 eulars, to—wit:
11 1. To Show by whom the plaintiff and other men mentioned,
12 "were ordered and directed" as set forth on page 2 of the
15 petition in the fifth and sixth lines from the top thereof.
14 2. To Show by Whom plaintiff himself woe ordered to
15 assist in the operation of the running of soia car, as set
16 forth on nae? 8 of the petition in the eighth, ninth and
17 tenth lines from the top of Raid page.
n“ {"ﬁ. ‘ .
18 5.1%) Show by their; plaintiff and the others“.....s_vsu1118 1n
the operation of said hand—oar, were oréereﬂ to increase
19 > -
its speed as set forth in the two lines next to toe bottom
20
of page 2 of the petition.
21 ,
22
25 __.lmllllmwill_il_li_--.“.
V Counsel for defenaant.
24
25 7
26
27
28 '
29
30 ,

 .A’/(4‘. j _,r- ,. . ,‘ 1 ~“ ’ 'I W "(T '-‘ , ; : . ﬂ
// “f ‘__; ‘ A5,: a /,/j ; , / ,rv "46w.
“5 .
2233.13.13! ELEQElE 9.211112.
JOE CAKPBELL, SUEING BY HIS
NEXT FRIFND, ELIHUR CAMPBELL, WLAINTIFP.
VS.--————PET1TION.
LEXINGTON & EASTERN RAIL-
wgymePMN. ;umermmﬂ.
The plaintiff, Joe Campbell, for cause of action
against the Lexington & Eastern Rail-way Company, says
\ that he is an infant under 21 years of age, and he sues byélg
\; " ‘ ' ~ g
1 his father as next friend, Elihue Canpbell; that the Lex- :
ington & Eastern fail-way Company is a corporation organ~
ized under and pursuant to the Lars of the State of Ken-
tucky and as such it has the power to sue and be sued, end
to build and operate a railroad or railroads in Kentucky
and it is the owner of and is onerating and was at the time
hereinafter mentioned operating a line of railroad through
Perry County, Kentucky; that the plaintiff was emoloyed by ,
the defenoang*,railroad Cwmnuny as a common laborer on its»
I “..___M; '--"“-‘~-"‘»-.-a.—m»~.M«—sv‘"w
ﬂ line of railway in ?erry County and placed by it in charge
5 of and directed by it to work under and according to the
% directions of a foreman, who the said COmpany nlaced over
' him; that while engaged in such work and employment he and
other men working with him were ordered by the foreman in
charge, to move from that olaCe of work along defendants
line of railway to another place on its line of railway and
to do so by moving on a Hana-car which the defendant fur-
nished for that purpose; that the snid foreman with himself,
ordered this plaintiff and 15 other men to board said hand—
car and run it to the said,other place of work; that said
foreman ordered said hand—oar beside the said men toAioaded
..1~

 with large quantities of nicks, shovels, crowbars and g
as?
other tools and a quantity of other material to number- f_
\\\4/ less to mention so that there was not room upon said car 3;
‘ (’.‘ - “funnies-rowan?“ “..,.., .,, .‘ ; . . . I“;
” 3‘ to carry all of said tools and otner material and said
5 men; that notwithstanding this he and the other men were ;"
WV ordered and directei not only to board said car, but to x
run it quite a long distance along said railway in Perry }2
County to said other place of work and this plaintiff ; “x ,
: i; sin.“ was ordered to assist in the operation of and the running ,"‘ '
',' “iv 5, fl ‘7‘ ”.....» ‘, ”Meg" ‘
' ’x , ﬂ ' ' a . 1 ‘ ‘ ‘5 /'
' g 5 31 said car; ne says that tne car was so overloaded tnat \ x7;
I. ~--:-'_, i
a I . ,. 1 . . ,. .. . i
; there was not and Q10 not remain suiiiClent Space or room:
5 3
7 . . ‘ 5
; thereon for him to have a sale place in which ior him to g
: , ‘ I
5? \... ,, , , /
‘ .' . . _ _ .. . . . . . _ j
; seeist in tne operation of said car or sufficient room /
ror him to work safely in the operation of the same, and
it wastexbeedingly dangerous to nlaintifi to work at
, that place and in that way, and this was known to the de—
xﬂ~‘f gfendant and superior agent and servant placed over him,
Kl ‘5 V k .‘.') ' J.. - pp < 1 ‘ f7, - I J a 4. J. -I‘ I
‘: “1.gtne plaintlii, and who aireoo him to do the same, but the “r
\K ‘ 2:7 K51: I I: " "'3“; - .L‘! J' a 1 x - ‘ ‘ ‘ ' '_r‘ - A I .'”
lgff gagfﬂ5rjoanger bﬂGTGiTOﬂ ans tne danger to tnis plaintiii was not s 'i e
, £1 “wiz {Known to tne plaintifi, and by reason of the nature of his~ “; x
\f 51,}, ,1 , ~"‘,';_-r", . L"
5 'a A“? _ .,'“ ‘1‘
5:  in our favor as to his injuries and he made a splendid Witness for us‘é
Dr“: Combs we I are now side partners and iii—future cases he x7111
line right up with our side. There will be no trouble in securing
statenents from him in the future. Since this vomiot I have offered
Faulkner-What it some cost us to try all 2f the cases that he has and
he is Considering my preposition to him to bunch tum with his and I
may mire you the first of next Week fer authority in seVerei cases that
you‘htow about. I hate told Faulkner that-he must settle all with me
or none, that my only 0133901; in settling any of them-“including the
batten cases iemet-I want to save the trouble ans anmyence of fishing"
then. In the Patton cases I told himthat I would surprise him more than
media in the Campbell case: He Wanted to know that it was and I told
him that I would not say, "nor did I intend to say. “
more were three men that testified in line With the statement
attached from Hampton in the GampbeMnd if you will read that you will -
see that it Was quite a victory to overcome such evid nee." }

‘.'Ehe jury tonight was held too late to catch the train out of here
south and on account of their failure toweatch that train we put them
on a handcar and sent than home on that hand car and I trust that we

‘ “111 1086 nothing by that. Vie-Will be entirely-ready in any case that
canes up for trialafter this and it is the intention of the Court
and :ur attorneys here to try everything that is on the docket this term.-
—- I expect to leave here Monday—eftemoon and win then have everytrmg
7 g?! ewe/condition as far as the Witnesses ﬂaredconoeggd. —-
«L, New ' Yours tmy. one him» A(“"""r: as A out.

 i {.x
ﬂy ; no”
j. "”7 W ,..u
if}? (x j
‘ 5mg“ 4"; .:‘;
L 13455191” blh‘o‘Ul‘i‘ 0041“
5 Jon Cilil’njllh, or 1190. , :Lin‘nim.
Vb. iNLrnUUQIQMS OJEdhEL
hi BldihQiEE.
: minnows a; disarm;
, RnlLUAY UOhiAnI, bdfnhhnnf.
3 Gentlemen of the Jury:
i.
If you Shall believe from the evidence that the
plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, Lexington a
Eastern nailway Company, in company with other, as a section
hand, and that the plaintiff was ordered or director by ,
, defendant's foreman hemp, in charge of the plaintiff and
i others, to move from the place where they were at work upon
’ " a hand car, and ordereo or directed to work at one or the lovers
' ;’ of said hand car, and did so do in the moving of said car, and
if you shall further believe from the evidence that the car I '
was over-loaded with men and tools, so as that there was not
su_ficiont Space or r00m in which for the plaintiif towork -
with reasonable safety in the operation of said car, and that
this was known tO'me foreman hemp at the time, or could have
been known to him by the exercise of ordinary care, and that
the said hand car was run by those operating the same at an
unusually high”rate of Speed, under the direction and accord-
ing to the direction of the said foreman, and that the railroad
track over which the said hand car was ordered by the said
foreman to be run was in an unfinished condition and was out
of proper allignment, so that it was dangerous to run over some
at that rate of Speed, and in that way, and this was known to
the foreman at the time, and if you shall further believe from

 G
<0
the evidence that the plaintiff was thrown from or was caused tO
fall from said car was so running upon said track, because of
and as a direct or proximate result of the over-crowding of
said car with men and tools, so as not to leave him a reasonably
safe plrce in which to do the work assigned him, or as the di-
rect and proximate result of the great speed at which said car
~ was run, and the unfinished condition of said track, and the

improper allignment thereof, if any such there was, and the
plainti i was injured thereby and oecause thereof, then you
will find for the plaintiff, unless you shall believe as de—
fined in instructions Les. 3, 5, 4 Or 5.

II.

Unless you Shtll believe from the evidence that the
plaintiff was in the employ of defendant company and was direct-
ed by the foreman in charge of the plaintiff and the others work-

, ing with him to work in running said car in an over-crowded cOn—
dition, and so as that there was not room for him to do the
d work assigned him with reasonable safety to himself, or that he
”a: and those working with him wer: directed to run the car at an
3 ; unusual or excessive rate of speed over that track, or that the
track was unfinished and out of proper allignment and was known
so to be by the foreman in charge, and that the plaintiff was
injured as the direct and proximate result of being ordered to
work in an unsafe place, and that a place that was over—crowded
and not reasonably safe in which for him to work, or as the di—
rect and proximate result of the excessive rate oi sppeed at
which the car was being run under the direction of the foreman,
and the unfinished condition of the track, or the improper al-
lignment thereof, then you will find for the defendant,
,, III.
:2” Or, if you shall believe from the evidence that the
;)/;laintiff was hinself so careless and negligent in doing the

 O
5.
*0
work w ich he W's doing in propellina said car and that such
carelessness and negligence on his part contributed to produce
and bring about his injuries, if we had eny, an that but ior
such carelessness and negligence On his part the injury would
not have occurred, then you should iind for the deiendant.
/
'IV\ is ,
If you iind ior the plaintiif you will give to him
what you may believe iron tn: evidence is L :air compensation
for the physical pain 3nd mental anguish endured by bin and
a fair compensation irom what you may believe from the evidence
it is reasonably certain he will hereaiter endure; and if you ‘
,_ shell believe from the evidence that his injuries are permanent
, ,f in their nature and that his inture Dover to earn money will be
kid lessenea by reasen 3: such injuries, then you will iind ior him
the loss which you may believe irom the evidence will come to
him after he is twenty—one years oi age, because oi such losses-
ing of his power to earn money, as the direct proximate result
of said permanent injuries, ii tny; but not in all exceeding
five thousand dollars, ($5,000.00) the amount claimed in the
petition.
/ K A
. 2
x ,If you all agree upon a verdict you will sign it by your
1’ foreman; if you do not all agree, but as many as nine or more
.f.. of you do agree, you may bring a verdict, but those who bring
‘3' it‘uust sign it.

 .
'0
PERRY CInCUIT CLURT
Joe Campbell by dc., Elaintiff
Vs / _Iii sensor I Li ..5 i snip
r :.5--‘. iJJﬂl‘ .:‘.iim‘n‘ '1‘.
Lexington o Eastern heiltay $0., Defendant.
The Court says to the jury that the riding on an? operat-
{ ing of what is known in this record as hend or lover cars, is,
‘ to a certain extent, dangerous, and ii the jury believe from the
j; evidence that the plaixtiff, Joe Jenphell, Wes acquainted with

” ;. »the use of said lever cars, the: you are instructed that in en—

:flio geeine in the hsniline or using of said cars, the plaintiff as-
sumes all of the ordinary risks end hazards i_cident to the use
thereof. ind, if the jury believe from the evidence that the
falling from end u der the hand our conplained of by the plain-
tiff in this case, and was due to any of the ordinary risks or
hazards i cident to the use of said cars, you will iind for the
defendant. '

11.

Although the jury should believe from the evidence
that the defendant was negligent upon the occasion end at the time
Mentioned by the plaintiff in his petition, yet ii tlejury fur-
ther helieve from the evideLee that at the tine ind uLK; t‘e

_ occasion of the accident conpnlined of in the petition, the plain—
tiff, Joe Campbell, 73s himself in any respect negligent, and that
his negligence contributed to cause the accident enw injuries

‘ -\\ complained of in the petition, and, but for his said negligence
so contributing thereto said injuries would not have been received;

 Q

‘0
then the jury will find for the defe d nt.

‘ III.

The Court instructs the jury that ii the plaintiff did

; notwant to work in the place assisned him, if any place was assign—
: edhim, on the lever car, he could have refused to do so, and they
could only have had a right to ﬂiSCELTge him.

The Court instructs txe jury that the deiendant was not
an insurer of the life or safety oi the pl intiff while he was at
work for it; and if you belieVe from the evidence that this fall-

"- ing was an accident ior which no One was to blame or that it was
~ the r sult of the carelessness or negligence of the plaintiff or 3:
some fellow servant, then your verdict shoulG be for the defendant.
IV.

, The Court further i structs the jury that it was the
plaintiff's duty to be careful vnf to guard against accidents, and
if you believe from the evedence that the plaintiff :new of the
condition of the railroad track as couplained of by him in His ‘
petition jTiOT to the time of the accident, or if tie plaintiff

;_ By looking or using ordinary care readily could have discovered

"a; the danger, then your verdict should be for the defendant.