The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-16
SUPERIOR CoUaT-GEa;aal TERM.


Before Judges Mcneil McCunn ana Fithian.
Eyastus CrdarJord, PlGfntlG ana appellant. u.s.
Abrdn n. WEIGH, Defendant ana Respondent
was an action to recover damages done to the plain
tifs building, IN West Twenty-eighth street, running
through Twentyseventh street, caused by the ex
plosion OF steam boiler used by the defendant on
the premises adjoining, on the west. The defendant
occupied these adjoining premises, No. 1853 West
Twenty-eighth street, as turning and machine
shop, and had therein steam engine and boiler.
The boiler was an upright one and SCI in vault, It's
head coming up above the ground floor about four
eet, the vault being about five feet deep. There was
an arch the top OF the boiler and the boiler
head went up through this arch On the 9th OF Sep
nearly q perpendicular drectlon-insomuch that ID
did not touch four story building on the west,
standing about twelve or fourteen feet from where
the boiler stood--and yet inclining TO the west In
its ascent, and landed over 400 feet west from the
place where It started, coming down through the
street. The boiler weighed ii. 900 pounds, about
1--WE and half TONS It was admitted that the boiler
reached an altitude Of 200 feet, and mathematical
calculation, based upon the angle OF its ascent and
the curve 1t must have made TO have reached the
horizontal distance OF 400 feet IRON where 1t started
would demon trate that ], 200 feet was the minimum
height. The damage done the p!alatin's premises
was about $1,000. Some evidence was given on the
part Of plaiutif tending to show want OF water
and ndttentlve habits on the part of defendants
engineer. No evidence whatever was given on the
part Of the G defence explaining the cause OF the
killed. on this STATE OF facts the jury found YER
dict for the defendant on which motion was ma de
which ORDER as well as from the judgment, an ap.
peal was taken to the Geleral Term,
Decision Reserved
isniirond Accident.
Charles HdrEins guardian or James Harhins,
Appellant Us. The central Park, North and East
Ripey Railroad Con.pann Respoadeat-The action
was brought by plaintiff to recover tho sum OF
$50, o0O as compensation for injuries sustained by
his son, James, lad OF eight years old, by having
been run over by one OF the defendants cars, losing
leg and having the other permanently disabled
It was proved that the boy, in company with other
boys, was endeavoring to cross the track while one
car was going down and another up. He had
passed one aud was running across the track
OF the other when he fell and the Car run over
HIM, causing the injuries complained OF before the
driver had time to use the brake on this statement
OF facts the complaint, on motion, was dismissed on
the ground OF carelessness on the part Of the boy
before the general term on appeal. Decision
reserved.
Action to Recover on nm Agreement.
Eoenezer Y. CTandaH ct al, Appellants, Us. Ddcid
r. De WolT Respoadent-This was an action to
recover an lnsalment OF $4,000 due under an agree
ment by which the respondent sold the appellants
the good will and interest OF his shipping
business-which he carried on at No. Io3
Broad street, IN this city-rhe lease of the
Offlce occupied by respondents hrm-and having
three years to run-the ONCE furniture, aud also the
business OF the vessels when In this port and In
which De Wolf owned share or which he might he
able to control. In the agreement was clause to
the effect that De Wolf would not, for ave years. or
80 long as anything was due on the contract. start,
commence or do any business OF the same nature or
Kind In the city OF New York; but In the following
clause these words r:-"Ihs Is not to be under.
stood as debairng mimi from pursuing
certain other kinds OF business therein men,
toned. ON the trial OF the case Judge
McCunn thought the construction OF the agreement
to be O question OF law, aud decided that the busi
pursued by plaintiff was covered by the excep.
tonal clause OF the agreement and therefore not IN
violation OF IT, and accordingly Judgment was given
Tor the plaintiff for S4,0Sg. on the appeal counse
for appellants contended that the Court erred III con
strung the agreement and that II was question OF
TACT Tor jury, and not one OF law, and II not plain
upon lts lace should have been defined from the
testimony OF witnesses. Decision reserved.
SUPERIOR C0uRT-SPEClAl TERM.
Can the Word "Co.o be Added by Tive
Partners.
Indn