The New York herald., 1872-11-22

New Phase OF the Putnam-F0stcr
Homicide-Mrs. Putnam Sues tine
seventh Avenue Railroad Company
for Damages on Account OF the KILL
ing or Her Husband-The Testimony
Taken and Motion 60 DasMiss the Conn
plaint. H a, tusrs..
Until yesterday the name OF VIM. Foster, tae
alleged car hook murderer, has not been uttered
for many months in our Courts. More startling,
though not more atrocious, deeds Of crime have
caused alike his name and the terrible crime with
which he is charged to be almost forgotten. Again
the criMe is revived In the public memory by a
trial begun yesterday by Mrs. Ella L. Putnam, the
wife OF Avery d. Putnam, the victim OF the murder.
against the Seventh Avenue Railroad Company, TO
recover damages on account Of her husbands
death. The suit is for $4,000 damages TINS amount
beng the utmost the law allows in snts OF this
character Tor killing, although for maining-one OF
those unaccoun table freaks OF the laW-tnere IL no
limitation in the amount 10 be sued Tor me SUIT
was brought before Judge Curtis, OF the superior
Court. Nrel
THE OLD OLD STORY.
Such IL really is. First, 1t is recited in the COM
plant Of Mrs. Putnam--a q briefly cpltomzed recital
OF the same story as published directly after tne
murder, which occurred on the evening Of April 20
lS71-and then as again told at the C0r0nersnq
tiOn. The entire blame OF the killing OF her husband
is, OF course, charged upon the railroad
company and upon this damages are claimed: IL
is further set forth IN the complaint that her nus
old wholly dependent on her for support. Ihe
answer OF the company sets up general denial OF
tile allegations contained in the complaint, Or 10
quote the technical legal phraseoogy in which tins
denial s set forth, denies that the death OF Putnam
was caused "thrOugh any wilful act, neglect OF ue
fault Of the defendants. or by any wllu act,
neglect or default Of any agent servant or einpoJe
Of the defendants"
THE TESTIMONY IN MRS. PUTNAM'S BEHALF.
The testimony taken was but repetition OF tne
former stories and occupied but short time. MIS-.
Putnam was the first witness. Her testimony, as
she was not present at the murdcrous assaut, was
merely recitng the particulars or her husband
death. The testimony OF Miss Mabel Duvai, one
OF the ladies' with Mr.. Putnam at the time OF the
tragedy was the same as that given At the murder
| trial. Tie concluding witness was Mrs. Annie >
Duval, the mother OF the previous witness, whc
also was with Mr. Putnam on the night OF the 1ata
occurrence. She told the same story as at her pre-
| viOus examination. As this testimony has been
fully published heretofore in the HERALD 1t Is un
| necessary to give it again.
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
After the conclusion OF Mrs. Duvals testimony, a
motion was made to dismiss the complaint. This
motion was argued at great length by exJudge
s1o M1 They ne
killing Of Mr.. Putnam. The murderous blows,
i was urged, were struck . aa.,,or after all ~
authorities was cited in standardization OF this
argument. Mr.. Parsons in reply took OF course,
exactly the opposite view OF the case He claimed
that it was the duty Of the conductor IN me arsS M
intoxicated condition; and secondly, thai It was
the duty Of the driver to inform the conductor 0l
Fosters insults to the ladies In Mr.. Putnams care.
He dwe!t at great length upon the responsibility 0l
the railroad company to insure safety to passen
gers, and its liability for damages when any one
was killed or injured from want or such care. he
also quoted numerous authorities.
1t was nearly five O'Clock when the argument
closed. The Judge did not announce his decision,
but will probably do so this morning.