The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-02-11
Supreme Court-CirCuit Court.
Before Jud1e McCnun

IMPORTANT TO RAILROAD COMPANIES.
- FfB s--The evidence In the case Of Huber '. De-
Hart for assault and battery by throwing him from
the Philadelphia railroad cars, by which com
leg was broken, having been concluded,
The Judge charged the jury. He said 1t was ease of
considerable interest; 1t Of trihng
to the parties The jury to regard the be-
company at ALI They may suppose that the dsfsnda
himself Is to pay this money and Is able TO do IL
appeared that the plaintiff procured In November 1877
two tickets for himself and his companion. These tick
ct when purcbused became contracts emitting plain
tif to passage to his destination Having these tick
cts these en- might sr aught the Judge could ha
taken their passage in any that came along They
were not bound to take the next train The Law would
have given them this right unless the tickets were
men elected TO make their passage in the way train
especially having surrendered their tickets aud pro-
cured the conductors check they therefore adopted
that train. They left the train at Newark. In the
evening they took the way car Of the Philadelphia
train By the regulations Of the company these checks
were not to the purpose of the company with any
other train or conductor The jury were bound TO
Management must follow. UP TO this time, they found
the plaintiff without ticket authorizing him to be
brought oni nevertheless he was not an intruder
tender the fare, and then the conductor would
be bound to receive 1t. A passenger cannot be
turned out merely because he does not obtain
ticket. No railway company would have q right
to make sucb rule What the condition of those
psrtes Huber had not ticket emitting hir to come
Had the conductor right to req ure pay ment be-
fore he arrived at the end Of the journey Most cor
tADly because would never to let passengers
out at the end OF the route leaving the company
action for the Of recovering their fares Then
What remedy have they when spassspssr has ticket
hsstaton In saying that the Law would justify the
duetor In stoppng the train and putting the passen-
conductor had that right these refused to pay
but the manner OF doing so IL another thing IL Is
Important question Of sct did the plaintiff refuse to
pay he did and there Was no alternative but TO put
him out, then the conductor might put him out They
had the testimony Of shsss (Hubsrs Panon) that
he rendered hfty cents Huber also to this On
The other hand, they had the te'timony of the wit
ness Little, merely to say he ddAt see money or hear
any oner OF payment They also had the negative sort
of proof Of Seymour and Dodd. IL is rule that one
Affirmative witness IL worth host Of negative testi
Of the defence as the psati has done nothing 60 for
felt bis right TO remain In the IL worthy of
the jurys regard whether the difficulty hsd not gro
out OF the circumstance that when the
back TO the cars one Of the parties rsd pay the
conductor proceeded instantly to stop the ear
ducter had right to force in putting them
out than vas necessary. Thsrs was nothing wrong
/, .ss a ,ns
courage resistance. When they got tho plaintiff on
the platform we're they justified throwing hin the
laid hold Of the rails and resst.d In that wa aui In
no other he merely laid hold natural and
dssvored to sustain himself there Little sys that po~
erfu Seymour swept MIN on There il some scre-
psBcy; some FAY he thrown OF; plaintiff has him.
ssf ds,cr;bed the ipjury-the other men particularly
seymour, would r. present u ~ very gentle operation
Dodd ssys be was seized by the legs IL IL worthy Of
marx, that II thi. we're done gently these
ssFs"'' ~ hoN " nhpPen thht tue Was
brokenE " be had stood upon bis feet 10 " hardly
probable he would have broken his leg The ury would
bear In mind there three four ~ hes, aud
there vss necessity to to such force would
spdapger life or limb The fair presumption Ia that
Was done With unnecessary violence; iL housvsr the
jury think thst the force more than pstu-
rally to be expected In pushing plaintiff and that he
N. met vih this casualty the defendant 10 not In
this view liable. hthey think the plaintiff entitled to
recover then the next question would be the
The sciion vas commenced within q month after the
trsnsctiop: th.n ali the suffering bad not occurred
II any sIeoisl damages hare been sustained by the
plaintiff since the OF this thsy
not admissible here but the nature of the p l.
ansct<d BY the time this suit need IA OF
r~ynausnt characterone leg being by the
dfed sherter than the other and Jury liberty
toconsfcee ehat h 90 and that II s
With him 90 long - be lives They conhned to
the actual expenses incurred BY the plaintiff they may
fully ooDpepsste him and may 20 beyond hin In i'm
pesing exemplary damage. Az TO the jury being limit
I'd TO dsmsges TO the 9th Dscsmbsr 1850 hs -oUld
this injury ss verdict viii be bar ever any
sction ot the zane Injury beressr thse after all,
they could give spch damages they thought the
vsrrsps without regard to the tins whsa the suit
wss cfmnsncsd
To this charge Mr. BRADY made several .ssep,ons on
the part OF the defendant and sked th~ Court % In
suuottb jpry that defendant s not Responsible fr
sny escs1of vislepse BY pessoss other than himself
uriess he authorized tt
Judge ~ the jury b.lIev. tbattss defendant ala sot
touch the man, snd that " vas done BY seymour the
DESCENDANT would he liable because bslss there the
spot he vas bound to that excessive vislsncs
wss ussd.
~ bsirs bsitpss, oslOet, tn. Judg. ordsr,d seal
Cd verdict