Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-01-16
SUPERIOR COURT, January l2th.-Un
others rsus Clark and others.

SUPERIOR COURT, January l2th.-Underh and
others versus Clark and others.
This an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are
mEuen, living Long Island against the defendants
who the e5sees of the Ferry between Walnut ST..
New orl. and Jackson 81, Brooklyn for damages
tain BY them 1.-THE Plaintiff when the ferry boat Gen
era Jackson down by the steamboat Boston, in
August, 1896
This case was one of considerable importance to the
community large nasmuch the decision of the
Jury in this depended the liability Of the Of
ferry Ioats in general for neglect incompeency
the part Of any of the hands in their employer for
tanning in their service boat old be safe, for
not keeping up sufficient force Of be able to
work the boat out of the way Of other boats.
| Mr.. Jacob s. Jackson and others examined on the
part of the plaintiffs testified that they were on board the
ferry boat the morning of the accident that the boat
started without sufficient power of steam that she
old boat had originally been horse boat was
conseq uently built with lighter wood than is generally
used for steamboats,. That when the Boston first
seen coming into the eddy round Corears Hook. the
ferry boat turned with her bow up towards He'll
Gate but she made no Roadway against the tide, ewing
TO having enough steam power The Boston sheered
off shore avoid some small boats struck round
4 by the eddy and thus into the ferry boat. The
shock light as both the Bsstons engines
backed yethe ferry boat Immediately sunk and all the
property and lives lost All these facts were
fully proved, and this the for the plaintiff
The defendants brought witnesses the persons who
were employed about the boat and two or three rer-
sons who standing the shore the time. But
the former less interested and the lat
could not be supposed know any thing about it
accurately those board the boats their testimony
cannot be considered amounting TO reutaton of the
testimony the part of the plaintiffs Nor did the Jury
consider it. for they found verdict for the plaintiffs
| for the full amouat claimed.
IS every fact connected with the law this impor.
subject is highly valuable every member Of the
community, give the opinion the subject OF the
liability of all such companies, delivered by Judge Tall.
madge.
who habituay carry goods for all persons for hire The
Of soops and steam boats the Hudson river
carriers, they carry goods and baggage
for hire The rules Of law applicable the passenger
and his baggage on board of boats different
1.-THE passenger injured the passage he has the
ton for the injury; but he must prove that the injury
caused by negligence but ifthe baggage Of the pas
senger be lost he will recover for IL without proof Of
any negligence on the part Of the carrier The
common carrier, to the baggage, himself
only by showing that the loss occasoned by the
Of God the enemies OF the couniry and, although
the pays certain sum- which IA usually called
passage money il is in part payment for his person and
baggsge Ameng the class ct persons called common
carriers all elementary writers have cassed ferry
The defendants in this therefore. be consid
cred common carriers and the errage paid must be con-
sde-ed applicable to, and 10 include the property as
does the passage money on board the steam boat in.
Glade the baggage OF the passenger Applying these
principles Of the in question. the plaintiff
entitled 10 verdict The injury clearly caused by
se boats coming in collision, and this collision
caused by the Of God by the enemies Of the
try. III the fault entirely the part Of the Boston
vet that forms no defence. | consider this case in
which there are no facts for the Jury de
termne exceptss the amount the plaintiff is entitled
70 recover
From this most excellent and as think most right.
charge Judge Oakley and Judge Jones differed
in opinion Therefore the claim in this trial had to rest
solely the ground Of negligence, proved by the
idence Of inefciency the part Of the boat Of
the power employed.
As we said above the Jury found for the plaintiffs,
therefore all who Lost their property that occasion
who may suffer loss in similar way hereafter
-. 49, of far boa
We regret to say, however that owing to IRE
gularity IN the formal proceedings Of the court
neced otherwise with the merits ct the case, molten
was made to set aside the verdict.