The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-04-25
ACCIDENT SUITS.


There we're several accident disposed OF yestcr-
day in the courts Among others brought by
otto Kusc against the New York, New Haven and
Hartford Railroad Company. Kuse, while crossing
Tenth avenue at eventy-ourth street, was knocked
down and badly injured by locomotive OF the New
York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.
his for damages tried before Judge j. f. Daily,
In the Common Pleas Court yesterday no complained
that there bell rung and no warning whistle
gwen, although the night ioggy that 1t was I'M
possible Tor him 10 see the approaching engine The
defendants asserted on other hand that only
the bell rung, but when the train emerged from
tunnel and plaintiff was on the track warn
ing whistle gwen aud the brakes were put on,
winch proved inc jury considered IL u case OF
contribuve negligence ana ound ior the defendants
rhe case of James dwell against John ]. Hasbrook.
TO recover $4,000 damages for the death OF ms dear
ana dumb son, caused by falling through defendants
hatchway, resulted, before Judge Sedgwick OF the Su
pcrior Court yesterday, III verdict Tor defendant.
The SUIT OF Catherine Quinn against the Davicss
Glencove Starch Company was Tried before Judge
Freedman the Superior Court yesterday. Plaintiff
claimed S. coo damages Tor the death Of her husband
James, caused, as she alleged by grating on defend
ants establishment falling him, October ~, 1914.
The defence that the deceased haa been in their
employment; his duty was look alter the hatch;
they had notice insecure, and II IT was IL
because OF his negligence and that his death did
NOT result IRON tho hurt caused by injury but by
his bad aud in udicious habits. Case Brady
and Hartman tor plaintiff; Marsh and Wallace for de-
PENDANT
Hugh McKecver sued the New York Central and
Hucson River Railroad Company TO recover damages
Tor injuries TO his little sou, who was attempting to
dcncc tended TO show negligence on the part of tho
boy, that there on the part OF the employees
oil tho company, but on the contrary, the bell hal
been rung. the whistle blown and every effort made
10 stop the train and avoid the accident Upon this
state OF facts motion OF Mr.. Frank Looms,
counsel Tor the company, Judge Lawrence, before
whom the trial was had in supreme Court yesterday,
dismissed the complaint
DAUGHTER AGAINST MOTHER
In 1860 dry goods merchant this CITY, named
Lurad G. Heath, purchased house in Tenth street,
another in Eleventh street and farm In sew Jersey
The deeds Of the houses were made In the OF hts
wife, who, alleged, had great dread OF poverty,
and constantly imporluncd her husband when lie
bought property TO purchase 1t in her NAME that
provision might be thus made rs she said, Tor their
only child a daughter The wife obtained from her
husband deed OF The New Jersey lartn alter which he
separated IRON her anu went 10 Washington. In 1866
the wife, wanting to sell the iarm, found that the deed
TO was under New Jersey law, void, aud The hus-
Dand refused execute Tho conveyance unless his wife
would stpulate 10 invest the proceeds for the benefit
OF Their daughter, 10 which the wife asscnted Instead
OF conforming 10 her stipulation, however, she mme-
olatciy invested the proceeds IN houses In this Guy
her name. In 1872 Mr.. Heath died, and she mar
red Mr. Sibcy The daughter, a Mrs. Mason, now
brings suit against her mother have the houses pur
chased IN this city with the proceeds OF the Jersey
farm declared hers. The case came before Judge Van
Worst IN supreme Court Special Term yesterday, and
alter The submission OF testimony OF which the fore
going Is tho substance decision was reserved by the
Court
In the case OF the United states against Henry
Bischon. charged with issuing certificates resembling
passports, Commissioner Osborn yesterday rendered
an opinion Tho Commissioner states the only qucs-
ton 10 be determined this is whether the IN
slrumcut called "certhicatc OF IDENTIFY is IN the
nature Of passport Passports are granted by tho
government OF a country TO It's subjects citizens
facilitate their travel IRON point TO point In other
countries Their issue is limited TO the CITIZEN and
their principal efficacy In Identifying tho posscssor
ag A citizen and In asking aid and protection Tor him
as sucu citizen; but the American citizen and
tno foreign born resident OF this country there Is
manifest difference. Ii Is easily conceivable that
latter might occasion OF visiting other countries,
cvincilc more less continuous, and Tor longer
shorter period OF time. The COMMISSIONER attention
has been called TO the issue by the RUSSIAN govern
,nent OF dchargcs from allegiance and It's liabilities
conditioned upon tho establishments OF a domcilc
within six months beyond It's territory. For other
purposes and those quite distant from those which
i,assport is intended subservo authoritative ccrt
catIon OF identity OF an individual not entitled 10
uassport. may BIO a convenience Applying to this In
strumcnt as test the evident design with which
IL was issued aud the evident purpose Vi us pos
session rather than accidental points OF resemblance
between IL aud passport ! am Of tho opinion that
they are not OF nature II Is true that this
ca,fillcate was shown to DO In the possession OF
er,zen OF the United In act the statute under
when the complaint Is made limits It's operation 10 the
issue OF tho prohibited documents to Citizens Iho
distinctive character OF passport, however, ~ GER
tincaton of the citizenship OF It's possessor. THIS
footure IL entirely absent from the certificate here ex-
biblted: and from the simple fact that bnturalzcd
c,xcn may have supposed that the possession OF the
certificate might have served him 10 cu o. passport
s moi M liberty 10 infer that II Is OF similar nature
a., = nagsport Tho difference between tho Two docu-
mems Is an essential and vital one and cannot con-
struc the statute as applying 10 the pronoon VI .no
ssns OF such document as tho ono In question WIN