The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-03-25
Superior Court.
-ranm
Before Hon. Judge Bosworth and q jury
Acyyor Against FYRRY COMPANY FOR CAUSING Ihs DEATH

Before Hon. Judge Bosworth and q jury
ACTON Against FERRY COMPANY foH CAUSING ihs DAAih
u.am o4.-Patriek Mcclure administrator, de-, vs
Henry u Pierrepot and Jcaob r. lie RoyThs case has
brought BY the plaintiff against the defendants who
Of the Fulton Ferry Company to recover from
them the sum Of $4,000 under the statute Of lS47,
for causing the death OF young man. aged II years.
the of the plaintiff, by the swapping of small boat
in which he was on the 9TH July, 1852. 1t alleged
the part of the plaintiff that the ferry boat Manha
tan, owned by the defendants intothe small boat
in which the plaintiffs was and swamped it, causing
the death Of the lad by drowning The body OF the de-
ceased found few days afterwards in the East river
with terrible wound the head which supposed
to have been caused by Of the paddle wheels of the
steamboat Carcessness and inexperienced plotage
alleged the Of the accident On the part of the
defendants it contended that the deceased in
boat in the slip belonging to the Ferry Company that
due diligence exercised by the officers board the
steamboat to prevent the accident but that the young
the plaintiffs got excited and became perfectly
bewidered, and thus losing all control himself
into the danger and not being experienced in managing
boat was accessory to the disaster that befe him.
The plaintiff in addition, submitted that the calamity &C.
CURED during the strke amongst the pilots, and that
the then employed to steer the boat was never so
fhe Court charged that although it is contended that
the ferry company had right to clear slip and there.
fore not bound TO exercise that due and diligence
that they should under other circumstances yet even if
the party right TO be there and that it dan
place for him to be in yet the Court did not think
that that circumstance decisive of this action be-
if the agents of the company him there, and
could with reasonable care avoid coming in collision,
thew were bound to dc So The jury would bear in mind
that there other to whom the agents the
company owed positive duty, and they should not in
yove the passengers in any hazard to their personal
safety II there was any neglect or the
part of the pilot when he entered the slip, il there
negligence default wrongful act by the agents
Of the company which caused the death Of the deceased
the jury would then say what damage should be given
But they believed there was no negligence on the part
of the agents of the company, then matter wat
pathy they might feel for the plaintiff the defendants
were entitled to their verdict
The Jury after brief consultation brought in YER
dict for the defendants.
PART SECOND.
Before Hon. Judge Slosson and Jury.
William H. De Groot against the Farmers Fire Insur
Company Of Oneida County.-This action
brought by the plaintiff, clothing merchant doing bust
at "a and So Fulton street. running through to Gold
street. in this CITY, against the defendants who have
agency in this city, policy of insurance effected by
the plaintiff in said company for the sum of 81 $50 upon
destroyed partially by fire the first day of De-
cember, 1852 The plaintiff occupied the first floor in
the prosecution of his business but the fire broke ont
The floor next above him. and before the flames could be
subdued the plaintiffs stock which extensive, was
estimated to be damaged by water as alleged by his
Of s. 635 o. The plaintiffs stock insured also in
various other companies to the amount Of and
the part of his loss which he claimed the
above company liable to him for, was the sum of
4579 49, Counsel in opening the case to the jury stated
that this was to be test suit by which the other
panes would probably be governed in qudating plain
ts loss damage far they severally LIABLE
The entire stock Jumped at $40 co., and the damage
estimated by appraisers at about ten per cent.
For the defendants, Messrs. Charles O'Conor and
Charles Tracy their COUNSEL conended that the loss
damage to the plaintiffs stock was greatly and fraudu
lently estimated, and that the plaintiff removed
and disposed of the property without allowing the de-
PENDANTS reasonable opportunity for the inspection and
examination thereof and that the plaintiff refused
have them examined by the appraisers and
they also denied that the plaintiff did In all respects
comply with the conditions and terms of the policy
The having occupied the court for three days,
this morning compromised by the parties without sub
uniting it to the jury.