, 1870-06-02
tsfo1Ct A&2tnaz the Toledo II Wa.
oash RAil1ead Company for Per.

From ihe Neto York Times, Nous.
III. Tracey =. Roberta, = well-nown n1er.
chant Of this city. commenced al action eome
time ago for the purpose Of recovering eIn0..
900 from the Toledo i wabash Rairosd Can, can.
pany for personal injuries, which he claimed
he had sustained by reason Of the wrongful
and negligent acts Of the agents OF the defend
ants. The facts may be briefly stated as
fellows: The plaintiff, Roberts, in January,
Of tho defendants road with q ftee psssi fit Il
appears that prior to the date named, he. as
commercial traveller, and ns member OF :
firm here in New York, which was in the habit
Of regularly sending large amounts OF goods
By. certain express company to the West, OBJ
tanned through this express company free
others the defendants road. The scci,
dent happened near the town of Lafayette,
Ind, in consequence Of the rem
CIR Of tbs train, in which the plaintiff
was, being upset by coming in contact with
some obstruction st the switch, or in jumping
switch. The PLAINTIFF hip joint WAS dslocated,
and after being attended BY surgeons in Ind.
ana tor about eight weeks, he did not eeem to
get much better, and was finally brought on to
New York, where he was attended by such
medical men - Drs Parker 4nd swinburno.
him either and chlorofotm, aud then
operated on his hip with pulleys and other
wise, for the purpose Of setting the hip Joint
properly, which they found WAS dislocated.
But, As they testified on the stand, they found
that tco long time had elapsed since the in
extent become fixed in their new plhces, and
the surgeons would not consent to endanger
the lie Of their patient by continuing tho
operation. The result ia That the injured
limb is much shorter than the other, and al
Ways will be.
'i1,a {a1Yinnanu u, roo>1 ~ +ho S.nn ,,.,, u.,
somewhat conflicting. The plaintiffs testimo-
ny was TO the effect s1at he had free psss
when ho started from New York, but that
when he got ont into the State of indiana he
was compelled, by the necessities Of his busi-
nesrs, to branch on onto side lines, and that,
destroyed the pass he had from the defend
ants short time bef ore the accident, and that
ho "as riding as paying passenger when he
On the other hand, testimony was given for
the defendants to the effect that immediately
company called Oh the plaintiff, and asked him
II be had > pass at the time. Th1t plaintiff
replied, Ii Yes, he had" and Immediately felt
in lis pockets for il, but without finding it.
Ihis tbs the plaintiff, Under oath, d.
the same WAS given to him in New York with
the express understanding that he or any one
else accepting such = pass and travelling upon
if, should not hold the company Responsible for
any injuries or damage to persou or property
Of the holder, whether arising from the negli-
gence Of the agents Of the defendants, or
otherwise.
Judge Brady OF tho Supreme Court, charg-
Ing The jury, said that Al lie understood the
Inv Of this State as laid down by the Court Of
Appeals, the defendants in this case would
not 10 1inble for any ordinary acts Of negli-
eerce on the part Of their agents, provided at
tho time Of the accident, the plaintiff #as trav-
cling on FREQ pass, by tho terms Of which II
appeared that the Company Ind given notice
that they would not be responsible for dam
ages: The Judge said it had not yet beon
decided that, with e free rass, railroad compa-
MES could not be made responsible in clAes OF
gross negligence. In this case he did not
think any gross negligence had beed ahown.
Carriers OF passengers arc not in6urers in any
event.
The jury, after an absence Of two hours,
rendered verdict for the plnintin Of $4,000,
to which the Court, on motion, added An al
lowance, by way OF costs, Of S per cent.
For plaintiff, Mr- E. W. Stoughton; for de-
fcnuants, Meesrs Durrill i Jenks.
Cod Liver Oil.