New-York tribune., 1867-06-13
BUPREME COURT-GENERAL TERM-JCNE l2.-BefOre
Justices LEONARD, CLERKE, and INGRAHAM
DECISIONS

Justices LEONARD. CLERKE, and NGRAHAM.
DECISIONS.
William r. Grifiths agt. Thomas A. Scott Order
reversed; Injunction restored and continued III the
trial. with $40 Of the motion and $40 costs Of the ap
peal to abide the event Opinions by Leonard, r. j. and
CIRcUIr-Before Mr.. Justice PEckHAM.
THE DUTIES AND LIABILITIES or RAILROAD con
: DUCTORs-THE RIGHTS OF PASSENGERS.
Matthew Croker Administrator agt the Long Island Railroad Co
This is one of the many suits grow ing out of the
which several lives were lost Among those who were
Killed was son Of the plaintiff who was standing ON the
platform Of one OF the His father his personal
Representative and administrator brings suit for
for his loss that being the limit allowed by the statute
he evidence substantially that given in the suits be-
fore tried, and showed that that morning the
latfon aud all the seats in the forward cars being oc
Suped though possibly IN the rear car there may have
The defense the same viz: that the statute debars
Che person injured from recovery II he received i while
standing the PLATFORM unless there was not sufficient
accommodation within the car, and that the deceased
The Court charged substantially that the defendants
admitted negligence their part as the conductor OF
passed and thus accident that the conductor
being IN their employment the company was responsl
le They must at their peril that the men they EN-
plOy are proper and careful men.
As TO the other queston-that Of contributing negli
eence OF the decessed-f there for him inside
she cars' and seat winch proper, digent care would
have secured TO him, then the defendants were not liable
IN the last Of the nine cars II he able by the ord
ana aS care wnn SnS 20 axe 81 ord
at Is the duty OF conductor TO find seats for the pasen
gers and III In the 'front.' the seats were all occupied
and there seats In the is his duty to
sDform passengers Of the fact STILL IL the passenger
was his duty TO do so
Itwas not the deceaseds indispensable duty stand
3nsde the car the difference OF the danger the out
ede and inside was transparent obvious TO ALL then
ut might be negligence but the jury would perceive the
difficulties that naturally from snch proceeding
n the j0tng OF the the inside would
from the passenger on one side to the passenger the
iOther.
With regard to the amount OF the verdict that was
limited by the statute 70 such amount exceeding
los Co., the Jury shall deem fair and Just
ayiDg reference TO the pecunary 10
1.-The next of kin. In this case the young man having
keither children wife, the father the next OF kin n
s not Of course IN his 70 the exact amount
f damages In dollars and cents but he given you
khe elements which you are 70 estimate those dam
Rges the position age and occupation Of hs lie is
mot entitled for his grief suffering, for the
toss In his feelings and affections Nor you 70 give
kindictve dsmsges This s not the mode OF Furnishing
Hher negligence But you may look 10 what advantage
Hather In future.
The jury.rendered verdict for the plaintiff for $500
hr North for plaintiff; Mr. vsnderpoel for defendant.
ChAhbERs.-JUsE 12.-Before Justice IEGRAHAM.
REsIDENCR OF WIFE.
- Diana H. haetantrs sgt James hsekantife
The paintih Ia this suit charges her husband with
at BOSTON and this city with Mrs. sherman 10 this