The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-01-24
SUPREME couRI-GEneHAL TERM.

s'Life the Road',-ApppeaI from. q Judg-
ment Awarding Damages for Personal In
Iuries.
Before Judges Barnard, Ingraham and Sutherland.
xatilda A. Moody Plaintiff and Respondent, w. George
A. O'0ood, DEFENDANT and appellant This case came
before this court yesterday appeal by the defendant
from judgment At the Circuit and from order do.
sying motion for trial the Judges minutes.
The action brought by the plaintiff against tho do
PENDANT who is q sonn-law Of Commodore Vanderbilt.
for carelessly and neggensly driving his horses and
sleigh against her while she after having just previously
alighted from o Of the Eighth Avenue Railroad Com
pany, was attempting to cross said avenue from tho
railroad track to the sidewalk The accident occurred
and l2bth street. II appeared on the trial. that tho de-
Sendant with q two-horsc team, was driving up
ssher sleigh, and i. would seem Nth sha. " there
vas something OF an emnatory trot be-
Sleigh and Mr. oge, Of is occupants and who was
driving the Sleigh testified that he did not want defend
ant 70 get too far ahead Another witness also testified
that they were trotng close 10 three minutes Plain
Nn sustained severe cut the left eye and
rderabiy confused about the head and body. The
swer denied all negligence and SET concurrent negl
gsnce on the part Of plaintiff. Tho jury, under tho
charge OF me Court rendered verdict for plaintiff in
shat In actions Of this description the following legal
propositions as conditions precedent to the plaintiffs
she Injuries complained OF resulted solely from the neg
ngence Of defendant without degree Of conbutory
negligence on the part Of tho plaintiff that the
Abe evidence is equally consistent with the absence
as with the existence OF negligence In defendant
AZ these propositions correct, II commended,
Abe defendant had right to have them announced
She jury by the Court definite conclusions, without
eomment explanation tending to render their
obscure or confused. The evidence for the plaintiff
showed that before sho left the she looked up
down the road, while standing the step, for vehicles,
and turned around In alarm after taking four five
steps TO the sidewalk Tho defendants brother testified
hal plaintiff walked about half from
The car 10 the sidewalk turned, hesated, and, as
were, stopped The Judge Foster) erred in his charge
on the question Of damages Under the appeal taken BY
defendant from tho order denying his motion for
will do will be perceived that the defendant should
have relief against verdict which Is excessive to
damages; and the resut OF charge from the Court the
whole tone Of which unduly favorable to
plaintiff and adverse to defendant, ~ indeed
vas the whole OF the Judge at the trial.
- demonstrated In the where evidence
81 the coat OF defendants horses admitted TO pre-
1udcs him, under objection BY his counsel and yet do
ssndant was not permitted to prove that he who
sned for neghgently running over plaintiff, did all he
could avoid her.
The respondent claims that the objections made BY de-
PENDANT 10 the admission OF certain evidence pro-
psrly overusd by the Court that the testimony OF Dr.
Bedford In reference to the nature Of plaintiffs injuries
complaint properly refused, as there
negligence the part OF the plaintiff that the charge
Of the Court 10 the jury submitted TO them fairly the
Law OF the case that the rule Of damages properly
given by the Court to the jury and that the
. trial should be denied aud the judgment af rmsd
The was not fully argued and will DO concluded
mis- morning.