New-York daily tribune., 1866-01-12
No. l64 Dus lest, cor. Hudsop-.t.. Ncw.York
TODD & RAFFERTY,, Machinery Me-
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SUPERIOR COURT-TRIAL TERx-JAs. ll.-Be!are Justice
JONES.
A n OpERATIQX.

eUfEhiOh COCnA-ihiAL lEhA-'AS' S'Ai'"H''S'''s''~'
GOLD OPERATION
Henry Hamon sgt. Arthur Gentil .,
This is suit for the conversion OF $lUUO ID goiu
and in checks The plaintiff claimed that he gave
the gold tho defendant to be ken to the Bark of Norih
Newng Leonard his brokers' be delivered to them that
the n.esd q dong 90 Asr the shsea' @ and 'pseu
gwen to him for the purpose Of 'pecuatns for the plain
The jury found v-rdic icr Plaintiff for ss7s7 So
Before Justice RoBrRrsoS.
COLLISION on TIE EAST RIVER
John J. Cney, Adninis &C. agt The Brooklyn Ferry
The plaintiff in this tho legal r.pre..nisv. Of
Hugh Crey, and under the statute for $500 dam
ages for hs death caused by the sged negligence Of tho
Defendants The decreased the employ Of the corpora
corporaon dock down the East River When nearing
Rooseyrs slip they showed cut to avoid the TOW rope Of
tug according the compsaons trtony ssafl
heading little toward the shore when they discovered the
fery.Soa coming out of he 'p TIE testimony .. 2 he
appeared h, Crey being the ony one who anew anything
tho boats had the oars ana that b. COMPANION ht
l~apei of the boat according 70 evidence rushing
from the stern to the bow past Crsy to do So cey o
lowed him. Go~an, bis companioo was picked up es hs
Cri.leys body pckeGup some dsyt ateTwsrd Gov
srnOI iand The boat seli a0ated away apparently un
Tine defendants evidence showed that the erryb had
jus, acd that the bost was discovered the en-
sne stopped and backed and the engineer testified
one hst1 would have entisy arrested her headway
Tie for ths defense that under thes. cir
the accident shown to have occutei whort
sny fault the part Of IT, Company and entirely through the
deceased 10 going in boat heavy for one
without skilled assistance aEd tlEoasn an unIesoa
al 9 pa.ic o., the persons ln the boat.
The Court sed s. the question before the jury
whether the accident caused BY the negeucs OF tho
trr.y not They ought not to be carried away
by sympsty they should decide dpassons'ey as in the
case OF any The damis-s shcad they give them,
would b. .ach they would give to the sn If be were him
sell sueiny and known BY ae y to oe s ha point Of d,d
and the Of his probable sccumuons had be
hyed. 60
Were the defendants liable ., al II tie accident wss
caused BY their they were out the neeence Of
deceased had portion IN The eaasns oil u me psn
recoyrr Steam vessels bound srule to give way
70 sailing vessels The qu-sioD resy scs TO which vessel
lad the greater facility in getting ont OF the way u the other
Tnst was one the questions for the iny ery boai
coming ron slip should get such hsadway as TO be un.
bs 10 avoid the boats passing up AID down tue rpsr on the
he hand should keep close to the wharyes
to rsndef collision unavoidable. =,
Then the action OF the deceased in espny out s
nstrr. result of the sudden danger, what r.asonsbe man
would best do avoid DANGER act OF unTel onns ps
Tbr Judge then the evidence at some length ais
bearing, on these questions =
Tn. ,rry render. a q verdict for the defeDdaa's.
YAK man Laitry for p-htits; Richard L. Huntey iof
1e!end.Es , ,,,
aria Grou sgt John H. Pare; O. stsvus sisde ss' Chs
K,lm Br.disL johnson ast. Koie..ck W. CsIEon.-Ao-
tons s,gei