New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-06-05

ss Cain no esissses o. ,nsxs hssss s.-a ssas v
odezd Asrsn,sfor Sc Ts New rort AMI Hssa R.irs-
IscRau.x r. This action ia TO recover damages 70
q ;Ad y.o.'e;S y ss ssss s. e n. y "a
Tie e.Ed sr o. even y.s,s Of sss Linz 70 ne ses
iesrr nsft IT. essrcr shows thai the car
cdu.r that nss. PRECEDING the ssss;n' III s r. 81 To-
81. .hd hat h,a enid xhsn the snsss :, ID II
r offered exrsn ppsrsri on ,s'
s Of me ,r The 9. s esse . q ne sss 20 %
she decision with proper inssuetors 70 the eject Of
EId the child also, thnk the 30 recognized
sssss s s an ~ 81
eenf action Of this kind bur thss Of children
n sarss such child to Be aSas n the streets 81 city,
tended , her am no. prepared TIM. as .iss, q
popy e the Jury 70 50. whether undo, the cir.
e. .sss az .se VS.. wa.
70 :s IN M cS The Ss %s 4 s
this ground and also for the wspt o. evidence Of
drssd a. 70 the negligence question the
s ns proof q sRs, the u & rs without
proof damage win beecnsdeed on another branch OF this
case.
A. folio Al question asked of witness whether there
suy guards front Of the which wss dmittea and 70 Which
Hses. 81 the Defendants nd their servants. certainly sds
s inquire whether the tn o. the Ca, was 1ss
could stopped might be shown as evidence Of e,reene.s
such evidence was properly before the Jury for their
.d tia, the complaint did rot warrant inquiry bu,
complaint did negligence either the defendants or
sisted IN the acts Of the driver still there ample under
that charge sdd facts Of negligence on he part ne
esusns such injury u VIC"
ing the Jury that the plaintiff could recover whatever pecunsy
los the next Of kin the mother 9er con
that the Juy were 1--WE they should dee fair and Just
Sass s1e as III s11s from a &. The
The child the anguish OF the and confined the rule Of dam
The acts under which recovery n th. se,iOn sought
Seq @ 5 .$ sp spd . s Ty ss
which, II death had not ensned the injured party eond
h'Es .d. the fsSs injured
bad an seton for Ss OF ds%s S Sr SsS a
pretended that chow that
Dsoo IF Ss n S.' and that
skggIy nigh, award
The second section Of the statute az amended limits the recovery
o 'S S p5Uss s .ad s ins sS wa
IN T Injuries iss s5D 0 sue" DEAN 70 inc VIE anu
eanro, surpose that the intended eOnane the
such to proof OF actual peernai loss such np
and TO- saue proof of such loss would merely
he onln of Illnesses such question the opinion Of
Judge OF the opinion that such was not the intent OF the
but Il the rule in the act gwen to the Jury TO guide tne
ser they the circumstances of the accident the
and means OF support to be the u any, aud
ether Of this forming their opinion Of what ,hs pesn
Jrese gave then the words of the statute as the rule Of damage he
~ be What the o:her may be supposed the de the
child he only told them thar the damages were T. be sum
Inv other would entirely destroy the intent Of the
yh aih the na if %ead had ar
her @ And r pnS sdqP any Po 10 eo%
end which ENDANGERED the lives OF
and BY aaordns such injuries which did not
ey.S by The "a section Of the act Of is which aa. upon
The u ,sent or o. sorpany ' the same
In passed evidently with the intent OF ac
quns from railroad corporations as well IS 9the me 10 re-
ard highways the duty OF Courts adopt views which
with npuniry often before this
enacted but the contrary to give the enset o opns
s emily destroy third responsible for the
ae quences Of such negligence.
said that the damages are excessive me smoln awaded
by Jury 80 slight excess IN the amount under CIR
reversal of the m ment where the
mainly discretion Of The Jury sthouh they have awarded
tro without Jury, such does not warrant new trial
s shou IN the verdict does not AFFORD
Pfg. or PSr Ss sSI hs damages sna 1s's
Nv eonclusion that the judgment should Be affirmed
e.r to Which objection was msde this was
think admissible upon this ground yen coneedns in upon set
o 81 ee Of e e nsiSa h
would be DGai1 and 5y e,S h brake. BY which
could stopped due time and with guards to prevent injury 70
eyp shes driving car ii provided with brakes and gEd
crons and recrsng the latter description should be
driven much slow y and cautiously H.. a.. ...., am
not s6ed that the Jury in the charge IN the
pre- s'f b t IL Observation-Disclosures the
stated the Jury they seem at the same tune u nave nsen
tie mother nav BE- supposed TO think by
plated solely the pecunisIy injury resulting from
such death the next ca. be SAD s' pGn h sr oss
case the Oter the Gully of kin had contracted
and Gpenden. offspring could pcun. her
beyond perhaps the OF medical attendance aud burial eh
The in question !. not clear ri;
whose relations to the person killed were
such hat he or they mad g 81 R lie and hcS w.s by
deshsnd be applicable IL injury e the present whse
child Of tender and yet IN state OF de-
peuderce.
under the and especially 1sI ,ass
with my brethren in mIs the saSD ns q
the statute question from the Court OF last resort
Ogden, vs. sandersen ct al ~
Is hs .,. 1amshsd to the Court by which we
% the Of ~ and ne ong % b s eon,sned eisa
providing that the should cease ill the buildings were rebuilt
they destroyed by FIRE
tn, shows that the buildings destroyed by FIRE
m june spPo9s The @ emf Of ne o. Las %
the ls' May to 9Th June payable on the
quarter day let August
for the August quarter aud par. Of se No
s q Su not ssd h could
tbnk se evidence warrants finding eviction
until the premises wsr. 'esnt whi,
the precise tern, Of h. were DOES no. % oy
finished up 10 November 1883 Jennings testified and
contradict his testimony II not nnisned the
rent quarter ending LIST November w not payable ana
b Phelps cor s.uderson liable that quarter for snytbns
been negotiating for lease 81 me same
time Phelps neEostDs for surrender and De opaheo
of the time when all present and may o
with their assent all bese Negotiations however sP
eviction the tenant Interference Win as
OF the premises Of IT, BY which he Is de-
riyed without his accent; but where the tenant
for the premises and does not OBJECT o
time proposing surrender possession anas &
and particularly before the building WIS
hardly be considered an eviction. -, 49,.
But that for the time during tI o. .a
10
landlord such eviction only snsends the rent a9ns n &
OF evidence shows that mas eeon
removed the premises and that they are sna con