The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-10-31

,,NlIIlr totRr -Judgc IIshcr.-Ieorgc H.
Moore vs.. Charles W. woalen. Suit for ma.
lieions prosecution and arrest. This Ia a suit
growing out OF q recent trouble among the
oiilcisls connected with the internal revenue
service In North Carolina. Declaration filed
4nd process filed.
ND,sTRIcT SurGgIe Counr-GGNGgAL TERM
, Chief Justice Fisher and Justices wyIic and
| Olln sat in bdnc yesterday.
| hTTORNEYS ADMITTED,
| John O. Wilson, on the motion Of Mr.. MCr.
this court. Mr.. MerrleE preiaeed his motion
with high compliment to the legal acquire.
ments OF the applicant. o-.
New York, on the motion OF Mr.. Munzy, was
admitted to practice In this court. =.
W. RAILROAD CASE.
Railroad Company. This 10 an often:tried
Notion, growing out of injuries inflicted on a
lady 10 being thrown from street car.
A principal 10 not liable In exemplary dam.
ages for the tort OF his agent, unless In act
| or omission the principal has contributed to
| the torti
of the Court. lie held that the Court below
erred In overruling an instruction, prayed by
the defendant, to the effect that the plaintif
was not entitled to yindictiye damages, but
| only to compensation for whatever loss, pain,
| or injury the defendant might have sustained.
The Idea that the law takes revenge Is false
The law 81 Vengeance was abolished eighteen
hundred years ago. 1t does permit Jury to
warn the community not 10 FOLLOW the cx-
ample OF one who Injuries his neighbor by de-
sign or rccklessness, by assessing upon the
wrong.docr larger damages than would be al
lowed In other cases. But 10 these cases the
damages are not to be looked on as yindictve
damages. ."Exemplary damages Ia the better
phrase. In this case II does not appear but
that the defendant used every diligence to Sc
| cure the safety Of the passengers on the road
The law Will not allow exemplary damages to
be inflicted on principal for the act oil his
| agent unless It be shown that the principal
was In dereliction In connection with the Of
fence Of the agent. Nothing of the kind was
override the judgment below, and to send the
case back for a new trial.
| Judge wylie concurred In the view that the
principal was not liable In exemplary dam
ages for the wrong of HIS agent, but held that
| II the principal was dcrelict In the choice OF
an agent In the rules provided for his govern.
| ment, or In the failure to exercise aconstRnt
and diligent supervision over him, then the
principal was liable in exemplary damages Tor
Injuries which his diligcnt supervision and
| careful management could have prevented.
| Judge DIN held that there was no gross
| negligence in the transaction by which the
lady sustained injury The court below errs
In authorizing the Jury to innlct exemplary
damages lie errs also In rejecting Testimony
| tending to show that the railroad company
had done all II could to secure the safety Of
bponsible for the negligence of its employees,
was carrying the rule far enough, but 1t was
| going beyond all precedent to hold II rcPponsi.
bic for malice. lie concurrcd fully with the
Chief Justice.
Judgment reversed, and cage rcmandcd for
I-gCw trial.
| Brown VS.. The Alexandria and Washington
| Railroad Company. Action for cana cs done
colored woman in cXpclling her FROM car
| at Alexandria.
The Court Gentlemen arc you reNdy with
this case.
MIR. Cook appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr.. Mcrrick thought that the case was moi
10 condition at this time for the counsel o.
the railroad company to appear. The road
: was now In thc hands OF u receiver, and there
had been no service urcn the officers Of the
road, and, II he appeared, II would be but as
dmicw curT, The company now had no prac'
teal existenccj 1t was paralyzed.
: Mr., Riddle said the trouble about The case
: did not think themselves auth horned to appear
for the company IN this suit. II Mr.. Merrick
appeared MS a friend Of the court, (Gaicu,
curT,) he would appear as u friend OF Mr..
Merrick.
MIR, Cook wanted the case trIel; il the rail,
road company did not appear itcould stay out
MIR. Merriek mentioned that the company
Judge Wylic. Yes, it is also " In Chnncery,'
In the sense of the prize ring.
Mr.. Merrick. And 1t is getting pummellcd
by everybody. lLaughtcrl
Judge Wylie remarked on the fact that tho
!. this District, but the company which owned
! the road, though acting as one, yet as 1t hat
! it"o charters, from fro Jurisdictions, was In
u
! as existing under the District charter coul,
not be punished for wrong done the plaintiff
y | at Alexandria.
MIR. Cook GAld that the statute authorized
proceeding against such company rs a iorcig
:. corporation doing business here.
,. The case was set for tomorrow.
A. " ABOUT THE FoURTEENTH STREET SEWER,
VI Snow ct nj. VS.. The Corporation OF Whshin
"a ton and W. u. Downing. This case comes u
Ne under special rule OF the court RuthoriztL
g. certain injunction cases to be heard at u
In general term In the first instance. II was
10 bill for an Injunction to restrain the cOrlOf
is tioa from passing to Mr.. Downing, the co
tractor for the Fourteenth street sewer, the "a
certificates issued for the payment OF thu
work, and also to restrain the collection
\, said certificates. The bill alleges that II
or sewer in question was not constructed In q
- corhancc with the contract, and Is already
p. very diapidatcl condition.
re Judge DIN granted preliminary inIunctlo
III below, and the case was set on the calcnd'
3, of the general term as on motion to dtssolN
c. the Injunction.
a. Mr. Davidge appeared for the PLAINTIFF, NJ
L.; Mr., Mcpherson for Downing, and MI Cot
a. for the corporation. The argument on y
tn subject had not proceeded far when Jud
Is DIN expressed doubt as to whether the Gu
was properly In this court. Certainly the RI
was never, intended to allow y motion TO d
" solve an INJUNCTION q the court below to
~ After some discussion the record was .
~ lustcd by the entry OF An order OF Judge ol
a. nuRc pro tune, certifying the case from u
ar court below to this court. go
~ The case was then argued, but was settl
an by m order. entered by agreement OF couns
ri constituting the injunction as not prohibit!
40 Mr. bowling from instituting such rrocc'
40 ings against the corporation OF WABhingt
~ as he might think proper.
~ Adjourned.