Lucille H. Burch v. Reading Company

I disagree with the majority’s view that the trial judge was acting within his discretionary power when he made ref*581erence in his charge to “ * * widows and orphans who may be receiving dividends or interest from the defendant company and who may need that income for themselves and for their families "• *

In my opinion the injection into the case of the pecuniary interest of widows and orphans dependent upon income from their investment in the defendant railroad company’s securities constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Plaintiff’s counsel was clearly…