The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-01-18
Court or Common Pleas.
l.ta,a fI.c Iva nal

ACTION AGAINST THE HARLEM RAILROAD COMPANY,
FOR SERIOUS INJURY TO A hoy.
len Rciroad mi. 1, an sction N ,..oxsr
damages for the Ices Of ~ plaintiffs SON occa
stoned by an accident the railroad OF the defendants
BY which the ad OF the plaintiff lost his leg The
esse wss tried before. In February, ls4s when there
wssa verdict for the plaintiff. II appeared by the
evidence Of the lad John Gillixan Jr who was ured
on the occasion and tho ntly about fourteen
years Of age that about three ago he got on
Of the ilari, car, r--nty seventh street. It
sundays when he got on he the aid not give
him time 20 pay him hut cut him with a whip and he
fell on on the Other ,ids and the his loot
~ two minutes on 1t when he knocked on; two
men picked vitpess and carried him to the hospi-
ne Two montns the car ran over
cut on ust below the knee In few hours after he got
to the ho.p,sl; the man who cut witness with the
the SUNDAY school In Prince street.
Mr. O. W sandioid appeared for the defendants and
commended against the liability Of the company that
no earslessress uas proved and that II the driver
lNurpby1 had wifully knock ed the boy off the car,
the company vas not liable Murphy alone would be
ans~ersble for that set. He also contendsi that 1t
should be proved that there was no negligence on the
psrt Of the boy him..f when BY the evidence, such
Impossible 10 have checked the cars soon enough TO
have avoided the accident
The Judge IN h. charge tn. jury clearly pointed
out the la~ as to how tar the defendants liable
for the acts q their ervant This scten brought
~ The father In consequences Of injury done 70 his
child aud for tfs Losses occaoned thereby The jury
were not 70 take into considerato the susrines OF
the boy in their estimation OF the com 70 the
parent should they to the conclusion that the
evidence entiies him TO verdict because the child
has his own remedy for the injury he has sustained;
hot the present sciion IL mere pscunisry question
OF loss sustained BY the parent The parent cannot
recover unless tn. accident was occssionsa BY the
negiig'pc- Of the tervant OF the company. If the
negligence ws mutual and equal on the part Of the
iendsnts are not liable For Instance, II the boy
fooishy exposed himself 10 danger the driver the
owner would not BE- psnsible for the
bot the case - different when the accident occurs In
ropt of the railway car. aud In consequences of the
negligence a u. driver In stopping it's motion
The Judge. having reviewed the testimony told the
ufy wac matter OF fact on which they we're IL
decide end ~ they TO the conclusion that there
ws negligence on the cart Of the driver they should
take Into CONFEDERATION the value OF the services OF the
loy and the expenses OF hi. support from the time
his disability commenced up to such period 1t
unuet and q. the isgsl obligation the parent 10
support the child ceases at the OF twent he
may the value Of his service. up to time II
the diabiity centiup.s The injury IL very serious
smputsfi - the leg became necessary-ths boy
Hpy aid to his parent, he 10 cripple, and rendered
almost utel.es tor any mechanical labor. Then the
Jury. II they felt that the defendants we're liable,
should take into confederation the condition 81 the
yard! the mother ~ washervoman and some OF their
chidreD are cut at service During the time the child
IN the hospital the mother was obliged TO call
thsre daily aud rhs could 9ot have done 20 without
some pscuniary loss IL IL very dmcult however, to
deter mine What the value Of such child ~ 70 such
parent They had In evidence that boy Of his age
Gets 81 a week out Of which he clothes himself and,
s,so ths boy OF the anne gets sl2sa year Alter
90 me further ks the learned Judge mitted
the 20 the jury a. essentially question Of fact
Jav THE jury could not agree, and we're dis
charged