The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-20
Marine Court
Before Hon. Judge Thompson.


WHAT is NEGLIGENCE IN SERVANT.
Cor and Others Flatiaus-The PLAINTIFF
plumbers and several weeks ago sold to the defendant
large chandeliers which they agreed to put up in
first class house of the laters in First place. Brooklyn
admitted between the respective parties the
trial. that the plaintiffs to receive for the chande
ers and putting thsm up hundred and thirtyf
dollars The defence set up that the work of put
ting the chandeliers up neglgenty, unskllfully
and csreessy performed that the defendant sustained
damages to his building to the amount of thirty dollars
which he seeks to recosp against the claim Of the
plaintiffs The defendant proved that Mr.. Law, in the
employ Of the plaintiff sent TO Brooklyn put
Of the plaintiffs accompanied him. In the centre Of the
ceiling Of the front parlor, there WAS circular
msn in the middle Of which psoecteda gas pipe capped
with sealing To the for the purpose Of
putting the chandelier, Law applied lighted lamp to
the cap when violent expio sion Immediately followed
the iron pipe being at the time filled with gas The
sequence the entire destruction Of the central
ment, and the blackenng OF the ceiling in the vicinity
Of the accident Previous to the occurrence Law had
been over to the premises and with force pump had
tested the iron pipes to ascertain If they leaked not
Several made and 1t discovered that they
not tight At these times there gas in the
pipes The house was new one, not yet quite compile
ted although portion Of 1t occupied by defendants
family at the time of the explosion. law had notice
from defendant from any other source that the gas
bad been let into the main pipes did he make any
experiment to test the fact He testified that II
usual to have gas in the pipes Of house at that
stage in the progress Of is erection and that it his
intention to apply the force pump to the iron pipes
through the whole house. after he had put the chan
deebras The plaintiffs maintained that the damages Ia
question could in event be set off against their claim
in the action by way Of REQUIREMENT they not
connected with and did not arise out Of the subject
matter of the agreement between them and the defend
ant
THOMPSON J The amount in controversy in this
is quite inconsderable sti there principle involved
OF great significance II Is well settled rule Of law
s'that the negligence Of y servant acting by his
press implied order Is the negligence OF the
maser and the master in such cases liable for the
damages consequent the servants net. Law the
servant Of the plaintiffs and in tue act Of perform
ing contract made BY them with the defendant The
melting of the which formed the to the iron pipe
part and parcel Of the service which they had
agreed to do for the defendant At the time law applied
the torch to the cap piece defendants family
cupy ing part Of the premises. Law well knew what
the pipes there for; he knew they might be
hed with gas. 1t his duty, therefore, cautious
and skfu artisan, to have acertaned whether the gss
lad been let into the house not before he attempted
TO often the His failure TO do convicts him Of
gross and BILE negligence and careessness TIE
consequence OF his imprudence might have been more
disastrous. as t was, the defendant sustained injury
TO the building TO the amount OF SIS. entertain but
little tnubt that this amount msy be eytmately re-
covered against the claim of Tho plaintiffs uniform
adherence 10 just Ind salgtary rule ofiaw is
tablished 10 govern such this VIII do much 70
protect all classes cf the community from the disastrous
consequences resulting from the reckless negligence
are daily called upon 10 witness. Judgment for the
A III. - II al all rSta