Case ID: nj-misc_7/html/0888-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SAMUEL B. THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CENTRAL RAILROAD OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Decided October 16, 1929.
    Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodine.
    Eor the defendant-appellant, William A. Barlcalow {Be Toe Tomlinson, of counsel).
    Eor the plaintiff-respondent, Bari A. Merrill.
    
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict against the defendant in the sum of $12,500.

Our examination of the testimony in this case leads us to the conclusion that the defendant’s negligence was clearly established, and that the plaintiff was not shown to have been negligent in any particular. Eurther, the damages recovered, in the light of the testimony submitted at the trial, were not excessive.

The rule will be discharged.