The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-11-09


New York and Albany Line-Important
Charge Of Judge Card0zo, &c.
Before Judge Cardozo
Joseph r. Snih and the Nelo Jersey Steamboat Com
PAM This action was brought by the plaintiff for
damages which he alleges he suffered in consequence Of
the defendants eectng him from the steamer St. john
and refusing him passage 20 Albany on the evening Of
July 8, 1866 appears by the testimony that Smith
was attempting TO sell staterooms on the boat at a
premium having obtained the keys to the same through
a friend The agent OF the company informed him that
he was not permitted TO self the right to saterooms
the boat and directed him 10 desst He refused, claim
ing that he had such right and would exercise u
steamboat. The plaintiff laid his damages at IS, 00O
and alleged special damage Of 1904 for money which
he claims to have lost in resisting the officer who took
The testimony very conflicting respecting the man.
ner In which he removed from the boat But the
defendants that they caused his ejectment from
the boat, and claim that they had right to put him off,
as he was interfering with and diminishing the profits
Of their business and with the comfort OF the travelling
public by specializing IN the staterooms Of the boat
They deny any undue violence in the removal Of the
plaintiff and deny that he suffered any damage in con-
sequence.
After the plaintiff had rested his case. one OF the
counsel for the defendants, moved TO dismiss the
complaint the ground that the plaintiff, not hav.
ing received his sateroom keys from the Company had
no with the defendants such contract
rooms contrary to the regulations of the Company
he was trespaSser and the defendants had right to
eject him.
Judge Csrdoao denied the motion and charged
the jury at considerable length stating, after some
* ha The action was for
. verdict for such damages a. they might deem
the plaintiff entitled The plaintiff, he said held tick.
the steamer 81, John, and Il was q no importance
whether he purchased them himself got them through
% % SIC o. 70 n had
sion OF the saterooms hut his right to remain there and
proceed to Albany in the boat depended upon his pay
10 purchase On. wa: prevented or waived the con-
duct OF defendants. yhe law imposes upon the do.
persons who are willing pay their fare except far
- defendants have right 70 exclude improper persons
and yss them the x 70 exclude anybody
purpose Of harming IT, or for rcazing any profit 0rdin
arily IL would be necessary for person TO make do.
a.iion Is this, ana for refusing 70 carry passenger
could b maintained And OF course Il would be neces-
70 b. carried unss. the jury credit bis statement
which would dispense with the necessity q making such
under threats OF personal Violence and n that b so il
not necessary either 10 return TO the boat to
him. The defendants cannot hire people possessed Of
great physical strength and put them 10 charge Of their
boats ticket houses and allow them threaten people
with bodily harm If hey attempt 10 go on their boats
and then say they liable because the plaintiff did
not, al the risk Of personal violence 90 on board the
boat and tender payment demand to be carried II Is
their duty to have In thor employ people who do not
threaten bodily harm; and II they employ such they
take the consequences themselves His honor
al length referred the evidence OF both sides and
10 the sworn statement Of the plaintiff that nothing
said to him about there being any objection 20
sell tickets, and that he knew Of no custom
TO Prevent him from doing II this theory be
II will be Tor the jury to say whether very great
rage has not been perpetrated the PLAINTIFF and
whether the damages should not Lesson 10 the
detondan,s which they viii be apt TO remember II the
jury hpd that the 1904 lost this scue that loss
may be taken into consideration In estimating the
DAMAGES The defendants present different theory,
that Is, that the plaintiff engaged In doing what
preiudicsl 20 their business namely, Specializing the
sale Of state keys that they notified him TO dcslst
aud that he, refusing put OFT they lawfully might
have done, aud in doing thcrc unnecessary
force used In conclusion, HIS Honor said Now gon-
tenep you have TO determine between the two conflict
ing theories You have the statement OF Smith on the
one side, his description OF the scute, &C. and il will
be for you to say whether under such a state
Of facts existed at that time, II is proba.
BILE he quietly and tamey submitted the
defcndants witness Mountain swears he did 10 be led
on the boat without making any resistance whatever
II you End in accordance with this theory Of the defend
ants then they will be entitled 10 verdict II you find
In accordance with the facts stated by plaintiff then
he s entitled 20 your verdict damages being exclusively
in your own discretion.
Juror inquired Of the Court whether the plaintiff had
tight resell tickets board the steamer which
the Court answered In the Affirmative.
The jury rendered verde, for 81, 400 against the
defendants.
motion made by Defendants attorneys for a new
ttlsl which denied, with stay OF proceedings the
defendants having twenty days in which TO make
on appeal