The New York herald., 1867-10-30
SUPREME coUaT-ClaCUIT.
Action Against the Brooklyn and ROckaway
Beach Railroad Company.
Dafn Iudga lhar

Action Against the Brooklyn and ROckaway
Beach Railroad Company.
Before Judge Gilbert.
HGrrey d. Aiten Adminis,rator, The brooklyn and
Rocfa,cay Beach Railroad Company This action was
brought to damages in the OF $1,000 for the
death OF Agnes Alen the wife Of plaintiff, which was
caused, alleged through the negligence Of servant
OF the company. II appeared by the evidence be-
half OF the plaintiff that the deceased walking along
the track OF tae railroad (which extends from about
Fulton avenue, at East New York, to Canarsie and
Rockaway beachl at Lehmans station, on the 22d OF
October last, when gravel train OF three cars propelled
by dummy engine which was in the rear Of the cars,
came along and she attempted to to side,
she was struck down and run over by the cars Plaintiff
testified that portion OF her head and one Of her arms
were cut off, as also ono OF her legs Deceased left
sepson, about fifteen years Of age, and adopted
niece.
Mary Ann Rolln testified that on the day in question
she in company with tho deceased, and that
they walking along the track when the train in
question approached there whistle any alarm
given but witness heard the noise OF the approaching
train and looking around observed that II behind
them they were a the time on the track abreast or the
platform, which witness Immediately ascended, and
when the passing she looked around for Mira
Allen. who then under the wheels II also ap-
peared by the testimony that q passenger train had
passed just previous to this and that the gravel tram
This was the principal testimony on behalf Of the
plaintiff.
ground that the negligence Of the deceased contributed
to the accident Even had no alarm been gwen, the
negligence OF tho deceased still remained from the fact
that she the track and endeavored 70 cross a.
the train approached Counsel read from the act Of
$780, which made unlawful for any person other than
an atsach6 OF q railroad TO walk along the track.
Counsel for tho plaintiff read the amendment OF 1854,
from which the provision was entirely omitted.
Counsel for the defence still claimed contrbutive neg
ligence on the part Of deceased whereupon counsel
for plaintiff asked leave to examine Mr.. Rich
ardson q witness for the dsfencel who was
In charge Of the gravel train Permission was
granted, and Mr. Richardson testified that he saw
the deceased on the track about eight hundred feet from
Lehmans station. Counsel then quoted from the
statute 70 the effect that In such q q company
would be held LIABLE the presence OF the deceased
known and the responsibility after this upon the
hands or the party in charge OF the tram The motion
for non-suit denied.
Mr.. Richardson was examined further and testified
that signal, by ringing the bell, given about
eight hundred feet from Conkling avenue where the
platform commenced and another by the WHISTLE about
ve hundred feet distant from the avenue He stopped
the engine possible
The motion for . not-suit then renewed tthe
for plaintiff having rested counsel for defence claiming
that everything had been done by the person charge
Of the train to prevent the accident Motion granted