52 FKDEBAIi BBPOBTEB. �4. Caekieb— Weongpul Excltjbion of Pabsenqee— Right of Resist- �ance — Damages. �A passenger about to be wrongfully ejected is not bound to sub- mit without resistance, but it should not be eneouraged, as it leads to afCrays and turbulence, and is generally useless where there is a de- termination to remove the passenger from the train. Butwliilesuch resistance is no defence to the action, if personal injury be inflicted as a resuit of it the Jury may look to the fact of resistance in mitiga- tion of damages. �6. Bame Subjeot — Excessive Verdict. �It is the exclusive province of the jury to afflx the damages, and where they are cautioned against excessive verdicts, prejudice, and passion, the court will not disturb their verdict iu a case contain- ing elements of gross personal indignity and injury. �Motion for New Trial. �Inge 4 Chandler,IQr plaintiff, oited Etting v. Bank, 11 Wheatv 75 ; Hallaway v. Armstrong, 30 Miss. 504 ; Adams v. Poiver^ 48 Mies. 451 ; Dorseyv. Spirey, 57 Miss. 627; Clymerv.Camefon, 56 Miss. 593; Perry v. Clark, 5 Miss. (How.) 495,; Brantley v. Carter, 26 Miss.; Cameronv. Wataon, 40 Miss. 191; Corbin y. yCameron, 31 Miss. 670; Hanna'y. Itenfro, 32 Miss. 125; M.eC. R. Co. y. Whitfield, 4:i Miss. %4<a ; Sirnpsoriy. ^on- de«, 23 Miss. 524; Pritchard v. Meyer», 13 MiiBs. (8. & M.) 532; Barkins v. Winston, 24 Misa. A8I ;' Docier y. Elli's;- 28 Miss. 720; Bank v. Railroad Co. 58 Miss. QOOiAbbrighton^ V. Railroad Co, 38 Miss. 280 ; Hurst v. Railtadd Co. 86 Miss. ^60; Bailey v. Railroad Co. 40 Miss. 402; Qarland y. Stew- art, 2 George, 314; Oay y. Simley, 3 George, 309; Harris v. Holliday, 4 How. (Miss.) 338 ; Watson y. Dickens, 12 g. & M. (Miss.) 608 ; Woods y. Gibbs, 6 George, 559; Storall y. The Bank, 8 S. & M. (Miss.) 305 ; Philbrick y. Hdlloway, 6 How. (Miss.) 91; Skinner y. Collier, 4 How. (Miss.) 376; Bohn y. Steam-boat, 7 S. & M. 715 ; Fox y. Williams, 6 George, 533 ; Hand y. Grant, 5 S. & M. 508 ; McMullen y. Mayo, 8 �5. & M, 278; Cogan y. Frisly, 7 George, 178; McOhee y. Harrington, 13 8. & M. 403; Atwood v. Meridith, 8 George, 635; Baringer y. Nesbitt, 1 S. & M. 22; Drake y. Sergent, 7 S. & M. 458; Routh y. Agricvltural, etc., 12 S. & M. 161; Hare v. Sproul, 2 How. (Miss.) 772; Rtdon v. Sintals' Heirs, ��� �
