The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-29
A Ten Years. Litigation.

from We ITOB wing.
The Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial
in the case OF Ernst against the Hudson River
Railroad Company, which from the length of
time ii has been in the courts and the vigor with
which 1t has been contested, may fairly take its
place among the celebrated causes of the State.
The history OF the case is substantially as fol-
lows:- ..
Henry Ernst was an industrious teamster re-
siding in the eastern part of this county, with
vile and six children dependent upon his labor
for support On the second day of December
1855, he started with his team for the city of
Albany. He arrived at the village of Bath
halted moment to await the ferry boat and
in passing with his team over the railroad cross
ing came in collision with the local train NOV
ing south, and received an injury which, within
two days, resulted in his death. Soon after, his
widow commenced this action to recover DANA
ges for causing his death, employing g. Wooster
now member of Assembly from this county, as
her attorney.
The cause was first tried in 1859 before Mr..
Justice Gould. The result was O nonsuit, Judge
Gould holding that the negligence OF the de-
ceased contributed to the injury, and refusing to
submit that question TO the jury.
From that decision the plaintiff appealed to
the General Term OF the Supreme Court. A new
trial was granted by the majority of the Court
Judge Gould dissenting.
1t was again tried in 1860 before Judge Hoge-
boom, and the plaintiff obtained verdict of
S2500.
From this Judgment the railroad company
appealed to the General Term, where the case
was again arraigned. The Judgment was again
affirmed by u majority of the Court, Judge
Gould again dissenting.
From the judgment of the General Term the
| railroad company appealed to the Court of
Appeals, where the case was argued at the June
term, 1862. Judge Gould was then on the bench
of the Court OF Appeals, and his associates
of that Court agreeing with him as to the law of
| the case the judgment OF the General Term was
reversed, and q new trial ordered.
The cause was tried at the Circuit for the
| third time before Judge Miller in November,
| 1866 Wooster Parmenter, NJ /. Townsend, and
Beach appeared for the plaintiff. The defend
ant was represented by T. M. North and Judge
Gould, who had by this time ceased to be Judge.
| and had resumed practice at the bar, AT the
conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence the de-
tendant moved for a nonsult. This motion was
ably and earnestly resisted by the counsel for
plaintiff, the defendant relying upon the de-
clsion of the Court of Appeals. Upon the
authority OF that decision Judge Miller granted
nonsuit
From that decision the plaintiff again APP
| pealed to the General Term, where the cause
was again argued. The Court unanimously
affirmed the judgment of nonsuit. Again the
| ihdefatigabe counsel for the plaintiff deter
mined to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and
The cause was again argued there i'll April last
| That Court has just rendered decision revers-
| ing the judgment OF the General Term and Cir
| cult and granting a new trial, holding that the
| question OF negligence must be submitted to the
| jury.
So that this case, after three trials at the Cir
cult, three arguments before the General Term
and before the Court OF Appeals. is now sent
back tor fourth trial, and it now appears as
though the plaintiff, after ten years contest
in the courts, was in fair way to recover
damages for the wrongful killing of her hus.
band.