The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-10-15
A CITY RAILROAD COMPANY
MULCTED IN DAMAGES.

On the 18th of May 1871, as Emily Furst five years
BID crossing Second avenue Sixth street. on an
brand for her invalid mother, who has since died.
abe by Second Avenue Railroad
car causing injuries which resulted the ampuation
of her arm. Suit was brought against the railroad
company for $2o, 900 damages. The brought
to trial before Judge Daily in the Court OF Common
Pleas On behalf of the plaintiff Mrs Cook, lady who
witnessed the accident testified that the child was
:rossing the avenue when the car, which driven
,apidly the horses being gallop struck her. and
hat the driver had his head turned aside and max
ng gestures at the shop girls who the sidewalk
Upon the part of the defence proven that the
was going ut slow rate of speed and while passing
buildings ON the avenue where pile OF build
Ing materials had been placed the child unexpectedly
ran out the track and against the centre OF the
where the break chains caught her, which resulted in
The injuries compa of
An amusing episode OF the trial was the cross-ex-
animation by Mr. Chauncey Shaer OF the driver OF the
present engaged cart driver Tor the company but
10 his employment since the day or the accident to
dates, he was obhvious he could not tell how many
passengers were IN the car because was not his bust
ness to count them and If the counsel himself
there as driver he would nnd enough to do to attend
snow, on that trip down, did you make any signs
or gestures TO any shop girls other women asked
Mr. Shafer
The witness with indgnity)-eNo, sir; am not ono
OF that kind have got woman and that Is enough
for me without going for another by gosh, have got
wish you would assist me to keep herr
but did you soc any lady on the sidewalk that
mo; but seen women Could not you see them
yourself in the street every dayfn
you say you are driving u cart nowY"
YOURSELF
what were you doing after this accident happened ?"
"Well VIII just tell you, sir was working up at
kingsbridge and High Brdgc-and you know where
that is-until the dimcrats' got out OF power and
they burst me out That is honest indeed They nut
me out wanted soft thing and got II: but il did
hot hst long, -
Upon being further Intercepted as to his OCCUPATION
rom the time OF the accident until his last employ.
mcnt by the company he could give precise dates
and, turning to Judge Daily, sad, AT am asked by
gentleman like you can tell you, but don't want 10
be bothered
Several doctors examined as to whether another
amputaon OF the stump would be necessary and they
testified that II would not and also that the childis
growth was retarded from the shock resulting from the
accident Mr. Scribncr moved for dismissal Of tho
complaint upon several grounds, and submitted that
upon the evidence IT was case OF contributvo
negligence; that tho mother of the child was also
negligent in allowing OF such tender years 60 on
the public streets unattended Judge Daily, in charging
the jury LETT IL to them TO say whether the negligence
the part OF the company the child, and in an
elaborate charge defined the legal distinctions between
negligence and contributive negligence
The jury retired and after being some two hours
brought In a verdict for $4,000 for the plaintiff