The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-12-10
Superior COurt-PaKt FlrAt.
Before Hon. Judge Payne.

Orc g. Brjamin NJ. Yor, ing ton and we o. The Nes
York and New Hauen Railroad Company This was
ton wrought by the Rev. Mr. Warrington Of Stamford
Connecticut against the New York aud New Haven Rail
road Company for injuries inflicted his wife, by oot
lficn. on the 9Th january 1851 1t alleged by Mr..
Gerard and MI Hoffman for the plaintiff that Mrs Var
ripgon to Stamford to take express train by
hgence Of the swchman the train fwtched of the track
rear Mamoronock but no injuries then sustained
by Mrs Warrington; but on her return to New FORK q
collision took place by which that lady sustained
rious injuries Damages are laid at $50 600.
Robert Swartevort the first wi mess deposedThat he
was passenger on the train on the Sh Of Jonuary,
lS5l eaw Mrs Warrington in the train not acquaint
tho train in collision With the down train the
train was In going at the usual speed from twenty
to thirty meo per hour when the came together
injury; passed forward what damage hsa been
done 1T the door Of the first car met Mr. Benedict
and sene other gentlemen bringn, Mrs Warrington
the hind the baggage had come into the pas.
s.nssr car - far the stove 30 a. to form
pie baIrcade Mrs Y appeared to be in great pain
IL war q single track at that time.
1t appeared from other testimony that Mrs. Yarring
ton thrown down and completely covered up In the
rubbish, and seemed to be seriously not fatally In
jured she did not rise; there two or three
who aided in risating her. they had takea
on the rubbish, Mrs dragged out by force they
raised her up and carried her from that alongside
the track to the last passenger Of the down train
DR.. Is. F. White, Of Greenwich county, deposed that
he called to attend MIS- Warrington tho day after
Mrs was in bed disabled she said; she was in =
state CT reactve fever complaining Of pain snd extreme
tenCe1nefe, ana unable 10 move without oxcruciatng
pain this vas attended with spasms and cramps rs
sembliDg tetG, lock jaw there wsrejno bones broken
bu there was extreme tenderness about the abdomen
back sc she was Ill for three four weeks; she does
not appear to be active before the accident
DR. Darius Mead Of Greenwich deposed that he WAS
called in to attend Mrs " found her skin very cold;
she very pale and in state Of collapse pulse small
and feebe from her appearance she was In great pain
visited her for two three months for the first week
Other ttimony was oEered to show that Mrs Y.rng-
ton In good health previous to the accident aud that
she is much debilitsted ever since
Mr.. +. B. Cutting and Mr.. Hamilton Jr for the ie-
PENDANTS centsrded that the plaintiffs entitled only
to cen penatoly damages and are not entitled to vim
dictve or exemplary aamages nor are they entitled to
summed up the Court proceeded to charge the jury.
Judge Paine having stated the circumstances under
which the action brought. said this collision
by Of the negligence Of the railroad company
or its SCENTS the company liable. lit occurred
any negligence o. nbcrg their servant they are liable
he intended violate rule Of the company and to go
out Il time and contrary to what he knew BE- the
Ing his train against the down train that
things will not prevent the company from being liable.
The question q negligence is wholly for you In such
occurred it lies on the company to explain why 1t hap
psned and II they can exonerate Themselves. II you
should think that Lynberg did net design TO against
the other ,rain then is admitted that he did
the rules Of the company, there would to be Ii tie
doubt about his ntggsce; because he went knowing
that train then due and had right to the road,
and that by going on he incurred unnecessarily i'm
minent danger in improper 1t is he sent
word to the Of the down train to wait for
but understand the rules Of the road this would
been against the rules leave however, this question
Of negligence entirely you Is question OF act and
within your province In relation to the damages which
you ought to five you think the plaintiffs entitled to
recover think you cannot give any damages foe any
injury which Mr. Warrington has stained any
msRes for injury Which falls upon him such
ptnsee which con.equent upon the injury for phy
Glars nures me dcines and sosorth or which grow out
Of this tuit such counsel fees The damages which
you give should be confined to the injuries sustained by
Mrs Warrington, alone Nor do think that this Is
in which you ought to give vndicve exemplary
damages. But you ought to give Mrs harrington full
and damages for all her injuries for her past sui
srngs and pvations of body AMI mind ana for all the
sunerings privaons and ncoaveDi.Dces which she
be subjected to hereafter in consequence OF her injuries
The real duty you have perform this trial is
certain as correctly You cam what will be just
psnsaton and indemnity to her All this you ought "a
give her; you ought to indemnify her fully. but you
ought not to you ought to do her justice with
out going far to do injustice to the company rhs
Court then directed the jury to bring in sealed verdict
In the morning.