as to the evidence of plaintiff, it was | believe that the Court was so forgetful sufficient, as we recall it, if the jury believed it, to support the verdict. The first reason, therefore, cannot be sustained.

of the defendant's rights, we shall not now assume that we erred, and, therefore, cannot sustain the fourth reason.

The fifth, sixth and seventh reasons The second reason is that the verdict for a new trial allege errors committed is against the weight of the evidence. by the Court, either in its charge to the If this refers to the evidence to sup-jury or in its admission of certain eviport the averment of defendant's negligence, the weight was, beyond question, with the plaintiff.

dence. These cannot in the absence of the charge and the testimony be sustained.

We assume that had counsel intended If it refers to the weight of the evi- to rely upon any of the foregoing reasons, dence as to the amount of the damages, based upon the testimony or the charge including the cost of having another car, of the Court, a transcript both of the cost of parts and repairs and the allow-testimony and the charge would have ance of a sum for depreciation, we can- been furnished to us. not from memory, recall the details, and defendant has not furnished us with a transcript of the testimony. Our impression, however, is that there was no preponderance on that subject in favor of the defendant, and, as it was purely a question of fact, upon which the jury, after careful consideration, passed, we shall not now overthrow their conclusions upon the matter.

The third reason is that the verdict was against the charge of the Court.

Not having been furnished with a copy of our charge, and not recalling from memory the details of our instructions, we cannot accurately pass upon this reason. We are under the impression, however, that the whole matter in controversy was left to the jury, with adequate instructions upon every question raised, and we cannot now say that our charge was disregarded.

66

The fourth reason, that the Court erred in not submitting to the jury the fact whether or not the damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff were caused by defendant's negligence," is, if supported by the record, of vital importance.

Unless the evidence of such negligence was uncontradicted, or unless the liability of the defendant was admitted by the defendant, or his counsel, the Court in ignoring the matter and failing to submit the question to the jury would certainly be in great error.

However, not having been furnished with a transcript of the charge, as previously stated, and not having reason to

We believe that the case was fairly submitted by presenting to the jury a review of the salient facts on both sides, and of the theories of plaintiff and defendant, with a reference to the testimony of the witnesses, supporting both the plaintiff's and defendant's positions, and we see no reason to now disturb the verdict.

The motion for a new trial is, therefore, refused.

Legal Miscellany.

Suits Against Railroads Must be Brought
Against the Director General.

UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRA-
TION, WASHINGTON

OCTOBER 28, 1918.

GENERAL ORDER No. 50. WHEREAS by the Proclamations dated December 26, 1917, and April 11, 1918, the President took possession and assumed control of systems of transportation and the appurtenances thereof, and appointed the undersigned, William G. McAdoo, Director General of Railroads, and provided in and by said Proclamations that "until and except so far as said Director shall from time to time otherwise by general or special orders determine, such systems of transportation shall remain subject to all existing statutes and orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission and to all stat

utes... but any orders, general or special, hereafter made by said Director shall have paramount authority and be obeyed as such"; and

upon operating officials operating for the Director General of Railroads, the railroad or other carrier in respect of which the cause of action arises in the same way as service was heretofore made upon like operating officials for such railroad or other carrier company.

The pleadings in all such actions at

miralty, now pending against any carrier company for a cause of action arising since December 31, 1917, based upon a cause of action arising from or out of the operation of any railroad or other carrier, may on application be amended by substituting the Director General of Railroads for the carrier company as party defendant and dismissing the company therefrom.

WHEREAS the Act of Congress, called the Federal Control Act, approved March 21, 1918, provided that " carriers while under Federal Control shall be subject to all laws and liabilities as common car-law, suits in equity, or proceedings in adriers, whether arising under State or Federal laws or at common law, except in so far as may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any other Act applicable to such Federal control, or with any order of the President"; and WHEREAS Since the Director General assumed control of said systems of transportation, suits are being brought and judgments and decrees rendered against carrier corporations on matters based on causes of action arising during Federal control for which the said carrier corporations are not responsible, and it is right and proper that the actions, suits and proceedings hereinafter referred to, based on causes of action arising during or out of Federal control should be brought directly against the said Director General of Railroads and not against said corporations:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that actions at law, suits in equity, and proceedings in admiralty hereafter brought in any court based on contract, binding upon the Director General of Railroads, claim for death or injury to person, or for loss and damage to property, arising since December 31, 1917, and growing out of the possession, use, control or operation of any railroad or system of transportation by the Director General of Railroads, which action, suit, or proceeding but for Federal Control might have been brought against the carrier company, shall be brought against William G. McAdoo, Director General of Railroads, and not otherwise; provided, however, that this order shall not apply to actions, suits, or proceedings for the recovery of fines, penalties, and forfeitures.

Subject to the provisions of General Orders numbered 18, 18-A and 26, heretofore issued by the Director General of Railroads, service of process in any such action, suit or proceeding may be made

The undersigned Director General of Railroads is acting herein by authority of the President for and on behalf of the United States of America; therefore no supersedeas bond or other security shall be required of the Director General of Railroads in any court for the taking of or in connection with an appeal, writ of error, supersedeas, or other process in law, equity, or in admiralty, as a condition precedent to the prosecution of any such appeal, writ of error, supersedeas, or other process, or otherwise in respect of any such cause of action or proceeding.

W. G. McADOO, Director General of Railroads.

LANCASTER LAWREVIEW |ruary 2, 1918, he was admitted to prac

VOL. XXXVI] FRIDAY, NOV. 15, 1918.

Bar Meeting.

To take Action on the Death of Lt. Daniel S.
Keller, 316th Infantry.

Daniel Shenk Keller was born in Lancaster Township, August 18, 1894.

He attended Williams College and graduated with the class of 1915.

tice by this Court. In the meantime, the present war was declared. A condition [No. 3 arose where many young men, who loved their country and were physically fitted, felt it their duty to defend American freedom. Mr. Keller was, therefore, impelled by this sense of duty to enlist in the service of the United States. He was ordered to the training camp at Ft. Niagara, and through his earnest labors he earned a commission in the Infantry as First Lieutenant. Subsequently, he became Battalion Adjutant of the 316th United States Infantry. The place and manner of his death can be described by others with more accuracy than I could describe them, and his traits of character can be better told by his associates. We sincerely lament his untimely end. The blow is severe to his wife, his parents and his many friends; but what end could be more glorious for him than to have died for his country? His memory will linger in the hearts of his fellowcitizens, and his name will be cherished as we now cherish those who, in the War of the Rebellion, offered their young lives that this nation might live.

He studied law in the office of Coyle & Keller at Lancaster, taking also a law course at Columbia University, but when war was declared left his class shortly before graduation, and enlisted.

He attended the officers' training camp at Fort Niagara and secured a commission as First Lieutenant.

He was admitted to the Bar on February 2, 1918, and soon after went to France with the 179th Division and became Battalion Adjutant.

On September 29th, 1918, he was killed in battle in France.

A meeting of the Lancaster Bar was held Wednesday morning, November 6th, 1918, to take action on the death of Daniel S. Keller.

Hon. Chas. I. Landis was made Chairman and B. J. Myers Secretary.

On moving the appointment of a committee to draft resolutions, John A. Coyle, Esq., said:

The pitifully sorrowful fact which you have just announced, together with the facts that I knew Daniel Keller as babe, and boy and man, was intimately ac

On taking the chair, Judge Landis said: quainted with him as a student in our

Gentlemen of the Bar:

His pre

We have met this morning to pay our last tribute of respect to Daniel Shenk Keller, the youngest member of our Bar. Mr. Keller was born in Lancaster Township, just outside the confines of the city, on August 18, 1894. He was, therefore, at the time of his death, a few months past his twenty-fourth year. liminary education was acquired at Yeates Preparatory School, and he afterwards attended Williams College, where he graduated in the Class of 1915. On Septmber 1, 1915, he was registered as a student at law, and he also took a law course at Columbia University. On Feb

offices, and my admiration and affection for him, as well as the fact that we, on our maternal sides, are of the same blood, cause me to rise for, I think, only the third time in my experience of over thirty-eight years at the Bar, in meetings called and held to pay respect to our deceased brothers.

Hitherto, in my experience as student and lawyer on all such occasions, we have had long years in which to review the life and character and, mayhap, the achievements of the brother whose decease we were mourning. It's a young life of which we take the measure today, for he still wore the rose of youth. He came into our group endowed with unusual natural

honest and sincere and cheerful and amiable and respectful, and with all the other qualities of the young man bursting with expectation and just opening the door of the active world and asking, "May I come in?"

Had he been spared, his Community, his State and the Nation would have benefited.

ability, equipped with a thorough educa- | He was fresh and young and active and tion, possessed of high intellectual qualities and highly cultivated literary taste. Of a prevailing good-humor and love for the society of his fellowmen, acquisitive of facts and friends, and having exercised an unflagging industry, one would have said of him that there was nothing lacking for a useful, successful and brilliant career. His days of professional life were few-they were numbered. He stood before this Court fully equipped with the garment which his country had placed upon him; he took the oath of support to the Constitution of the United States and the State of Pennsylvania, as well as the oath of fidelity to this Court and his client. He never had a client, for he turned in that moment and marched from this courtroom to the scene of his active service for his country, and to his death in that service. His professional achievement was sacrificethe sacrifice of his profession at the very threshold.

He was a part of the great awakening. When his country's self-respect was stung and its life imperilled, he sprang to punish and wreak a righteous vengeance, as well as protect its safety. Although within a few months of his graduation, he left Williams College, and could scarce be restrained from enlisting as a private in a local company, and was restrained only when he was convinced that he, with his attainments, could do more in his country's behalf by equipping himself as an officer, which he did.

When he left for France I never expected to see him again. Not because of any foolish premonition or ridiculous superstition, but because I knew him so well. I had seen the spirit of the cause in which he had enlisted shine in his face; I saw him completely wrapped up in his enthusiasm for the cause. I knew he was going not to advocate that cause but to fight for it. I knew that to fight was danger, that where danger was greatest most was to be achieved, that where achievement was possible he, with his eagerness, his courage and intrepidity, would be there, with or without orders, with or ahead of others.

Well, he left us. Over 200 years before, his maternal ancestor, John Keagy, came with Hans Herr to this country; came to escape persecution; seeking liberty of conscience, personal freedom. After more than 200 years this young adventurer marched back, carrying in his arms Liberty and Democracy and died in their cause, almost within reach of that ancestral territory.

He died as he had lived, a clean, wholesome, God-fearing young man. His last Scarcely above the age enabling him words show it. Doubtless after comto exercise the franchise of citizenship, mending himself to his Maker, he said to his superior officer, "God bless you, yet it can be said of him, not in the customarily formal way, that a community. Major; keep after them." He died, too, has lost a good citizen, but truthfully as all who knew him were sure he would and sincerely that his loss to the citizen-in action, leading his men. He is out ship of this community is a great one. He was of the highest type of young He was of the highest type of young manhood; he was within the age of those upon whom, a great man has said, a nation is not safe if it be not molded by their opinions-under the age of twentyfive years. Not with the greater part of his life gone, nor worn by years of activity and possibly weakened by the friction of civic conflicts, he had the most of his life for his community ahead of him.

of the ranks, but his spirit goes marching on, beckoning to his late commander, encouragingly to his parents, whom I hope will soon know the peace of an accepted

sorrow.

B. C. Atlee, Esq., said:
On seconding the motion of Mr. Coyle,

Compared with what he did, what I have to say to-day seems so completely inadequate that I hesitate to give voice to

"In ever-widening circles as the years. go on his offering of himself will be reLet us feel this fact, and in the admin-membered and his memory will become istration of our laws try to make true the proud heritage of our Bar, of our some, at least, of those ideals which he County and of our State." would have exemplified in his life.