The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-16
SUPERIOR cuuaT-GENsaAL Term.
Damages by a Boiler Explosion.

DumuGes by n I5OHer ExptO61On.
Before Judges Mcneil, McCunn and Fithan.
E'astus CRAWFORD, PqatntD ana Appellant. as.
Aorans r. WEIGH, DEFENDANT ana Respondent
was an action to damages done to the plain
tits building, West Twenty eighth street. running
through to Twenty-seventh street, caused by the ex
plosi0n OF steam boiler used by the defendant on
the premises adjoining, the west. The defendant
occupied these adjoining premises. No. 1853 West
Twenty-etghth street, as turning and machine
shop, and had therein 2 steam engine and boiler.
head coming up above the ground floor about four
ieet the vault being about five feet deep. There
an arch over the top OF the boiler and the boiler
head went up through this arch On the 9th OF Sep
tember, 1857 the boiler exploded, shooting up In
nearly perpendicular Observation-Disclosures that It
did not touch four story building on the west,
standing about twelve or fourteen feet from where
yet ni est 70 s IN
place where 1t started, coming down through the
rear Of Mr.. Houseman's mousse, in Twentyeightn
street. The boiler weighed IL 900 pounds, about
i've and half TONS It was admitted that the boiler
reached an altitude Of l2oO feet, and mathematical
the curve 1t must have made TO have reached the
horizontal distance OF 400 feet from where 1t started
would demon traie that l. 200 feet was the minimum
height The damage done the plaintin-s premises
was about $1,000. Some evidence was given on the
part Of plaiutif tending to show want of water
and inattentive habits on the part OF defendants
engineer. No evidence whatever was given on the
part Of the defence explaining tue cause OF the
killed On this State OF facts the jury found YER.
dict for the defendant, on which motion was MA de
for 2 new trial on the minutes, and denied, from
which order, as well as from the Judgment, an ap.
peal was taken to tho Gelera Term.
Decision Reserved
Railroad Accident.
Charles Hnrbias Guardian or James Harkins
appellant, Us. The Central Park, Worth and East
Rtpev Railroad Company, Respontent-The action
was brought by plaintiff to recover the sum OF
$4,000 as compensation for injuries sustained by
his son, James, lad OF eight years old, by having
been run over by OF the defendants cars, losing
. leg and having the other permanently disabled
thereby On the trial Of the case before Judge Jones
1t 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
81 the other when he fell and the Car run over
HIM, causing the injuries complained OF before the
Of facts the complaint, on motion, was dismissed on
the ground OF carelessness the part OF the boy.
a new trial was denied, and now the case comes
before the general term on appeal. Decision
reserved.
Action 10 Recover ON an Agreement.
E0enezer Y. CiandaH ct al, Appellants, Us. DdUid
r. De WolT Respondent-This was an action to
recover an insalment Of $4,000 due under an agree.
ment BY which the respondent sold the appellants
the good viii aud interest or his shipping
Broad street, in this clty-rhe lease Of the
Office occupied by respondents frn,-and having
business or the vessels when in this port and in
which DE Wolf owned share or which he might be
able TO control. In tue agreement was o clause to
the effect that De Wolf would not, for I'VE years. or
30 long 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 occur:-Ths Is not to be under.
stood as debarring 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 question OF law, aud decided that the busl-
ness pursued by plaintiff WAS covered by the excep-
tional clause Of the agreement and therefore not in
violation OF It, and accordingly judgment was given
Ior Inc plaintin for S4080. On the appeal counsel
Tor appellants cOntended that the Court erred In con-
strung the agreement, and that it was question OF
Ace lot jury. and not one OF law, and II not plain
upon its lace should have ocen defined from the
testimony OF witnesses. Decision reserved
SUPERIOR C0unT-SPECAl TERM.
Can tho Word Geo." be Added by Two
Partners.
Before Judge Jones'
QNayles II. Swords Of al W. Adontran j. OqDen-