The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-11-11
Superior Court.
Pant FIRsr.
Before Honorable Judge Campbell.
ICrIon AaAINsr oMNIBua PRoPRIErOE

ACTION AGAINST OMNIBUS PROPRiETOkS.
Nov 9.-dan~ah Broyby, administrative ~ Jphr
Brcphy, dsceoMd rs. S1ionio~ Ktpp aud abraham
B,oua.--Tbis was an action brought by the plaintiff
o. anst the defen for causing the death OF her
husband by the negligence OF their agent or servant
Ii appeared FROM the statement of the case, made
by Mr. Edmond Blankmsn, coansel on the part Of
the plaintiff that the defendants licensed propri
etors Of line of stages through this city, and that
on the Sd Of November, 1851, one Of their omnibus
neRigently driven over the deceased who was
trappled down by the horses NJ the corner OF Canal
and Greene streets, md dragged along the street for
a considerable distance, by means OF which he vas
so injured that after lingering about three days he
died. Mr. BlaDkmsn contended that the death Of
John Brophy was caused by the wrongful neglect Of
the defendent's agent, and that they are there
fore liable for damages. The learned counsel
made forcible and eloquent appeal on behalf Of
tho poor widow and her three helpless children
the youngest of whom was but seven months old,
and the eldest about five years, at the time Of the
occurrence-who have been deprived Of thsir only
support by the reckless and careless conduct OF the
defendants employee The deceased was about
thirty. eight years of age, and at tho time of his
death was in a lucrative business, by which he was
enabled to maintain his family comfortably. Dl-
images were laid So 600. The defence is, that the
accident was owing to the negligence Of the de-
ceased himself The jury were unable to agree, and
were discharged. This is the second time the case
has been tried with the same result; and it il worthy
Of remark, that Mr.. Wanmaker, the counsel who ap-
peared for the defence on the last occasion, was
himself killed by an omnibus, within day or two
after the trial.
PART SECOND.
Before Hon Judge Duer.
Nov. ii Action Contract, -IPm Il. Rus
sell and others cs Isaac B. Goger.-This was IN &C.
tion for damages arising, it is alleged, on the nom
fufment Of contract entered int by the parties.
1t contended for the plaintiffs that the defend
ant to charter the bark Prescott for tho
convey ance Of from 600 to $500 barrels of freight
to Sacramento, at 81 per foot, and that he stated
that he could procure full cargo for the vessel in
thirty days. which he was willing to do, on the
dersanding that he to receive five per cent COM
mission on the whole freight, and that the Prescott
should be consigned to Lewis s. Baily, agents Of the
defendant, in Sacramento city. This proposition
accepted, and the vessel was taken to pier No.
6, East river. Notice was served on the defendant
that she was ready, but he failed to perform his
contract, and the bark detained for cOnsdera-
Bile time, and the plaintiffs were obliged to take
other freight at lower rate than had been agreed
upon between him and them, The defence Is that
the contract was not completed, as the plaintiffs
stated that the commission az Sacramento was not
to be ever five per cent, ard the defendant had no
authority to agree to that, and that also he was
mere agent and broker, and had stated where he
was to get the freight, and that plaintiffs subss
quer ty obtained it, he therefore contends that he
is not liable for damages, but is entitled to 1915
commission. Damages were laid at $4,000, and the
jury rendered verdict for plaintiffs tor 1926.