The New York herald., 1873-12-21
COURT or COMMON PLEAS.-TaliL IERg-2ART 2.
Verdict for the City in an Important
suit.
.efore Jutlrp I.arrnnorp

Suit.
Before Judge Larremore
Allen r. Seaman vs.. the Mayor.-Ths action was
brought by the plsiutn, the OF the propeller
Samuel stanton, against the corporation to recover
damages which he sustained By reason OF the
negligence OF the defendants in permitting certain
spies, which were appurtenant to pier 4s North
River, to become detached therelrom 50 far as to
fall into such position under the water that the
PLAINTIFFS vessel, when passing by. in september,
1864, the obstruction not being visible
struck upon 1t and was injured The case
was tried I've years ago, Recorder Hackett
and MIR. Irull representing the city, when
the jury awarded 81. 1913 damages against the city.
1t was then appealed &c the General Term Of the
Court, and new trial ordered on the ground OF
error in the Judges charge, Judge Brady then OF
the Common Pleas, writing an able opinion. The
comes up in thls Court second time.
The testimony the former trial, taken in 1868,
was read by the oifcal stenograpner Joseph l..
Blunde, from which it appeared That the corpora
tlon had leased the pier in question to a Mr.. Da-
non who had leased 1t 10 the New York Steamship
Company, and that the company had placed the
protect their vessels; tnat through accident, the
spies mad fallen in the water. 1t was also proved
That the corporation, at the time OF the accident
were repairing the pier.
. Mr. run, who appeared, with Mr.. Forker, for
the city, moved for dismissal OF the complaint
on the ground that the corporation had no notice
oil the obstruction; that TO render the corporation
liable IL should be shown that they had notice
either express or implted also on the ground that
the corporation, having leased this pier under
covenant that the lessee should keen IL in renatr
that the corporation was not responsible,
Judge Larreinore denied the motion To- dismiss
and charged the jury at great length on the duty
OF the corporation TO keep the streets and piers OF
the city free rom all obstructons, and LETT TO the
jury the question as TO whether the lessee or the
corporation had charge and control OF the pier AZ
the time OF the accident. The jury found Tor de.
1endants.
Edwards and Odell for plaintiff
Loss OF Savings Banks Books.
Daniel Shea vs. The Citizens Savings Bank.-In
1864 the plaintiff, who was then IL years OF age,
enlisted in the United States Navy, receiving
bounty Of $500. lie deposited $3.50 with defend.
ants receiving bank book He was then drafted
from the North Carolina TO the Minnesota, lying at
Hampton Roads, and while being transferred from
the tug to that vessel with other sailors his bag
containing the book was lost. Plaintiff was all
through the naval engagements participated in by
the Minnesota, and has visited China and Japan
and returns 10 claim the money deposited with the
bank. The defence was that the money was paid
on drafts bearing the plaintin's signature and
Also, that the book was delivered up to the bank
by the party receiving the money The bank
claimed that the production or the book by them
believed them rom further responsibility.
Judge Larremore charged the jury that the by.
laws OF savings and other banks must be reason
hblei they must not be unreasonable, and whilst
ducton OF the bank book when payments or drafts
were made, yet where 1t becomes an imposslbility
~ prouncc That book, and tlat the loss ls occar