New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-07
AGAINST RUSSELL SAGE.
DECISION on HIS APPEAL IN THE LAID
LAW CASE.
THE JUDGMENT FOR $4,000 AFFIRMED. WITH
COSTS OF NEARLY s350o-JUsrICE INGRAHAMs

THE JUDGMENT FOR $4,000 AFFIRMED. WITH
coSrs or NEARLY 81 5oo-JUsr1CE INGRAHAMs
RULINGS AND CHARGE SUSTAINED.
A decision Affirming the Judgment Of $4,000 oD-
tanned bv William r. Laidlaw against Ruseen oas0
was handed down yesterday by the Appeia'e "
vision of the Supreme Court Justice rae $500
uro,. tho decision and all OF the otner JuS''e'
concurreG IN IT. In the afternoon fusse' soc
fused TO talk about the decision, ana Coio"e "'
his counsel also declined to make any s'a'e'e 49,.
The case, however, is sure to De car''e' " -"
Court o. Appeals. ,, ;.
The Laidlaw-Sage suit has become wei k"o"" "
,hA nt,,. IN account of the fact that IL mas pee"
before a Jury three times. and each time MI Sae
has been subjected TO a tantanzihe ciose
ton by Joseph II. Choate. Mr.. Laioid" -. 80,
Mr. Laidaw wac injured on December T. 1884, "","
the nadman Norcross attempted TO DO" up ~
Sage's office at No. Il Broadway. MI Laiuia" a."
ser,ed that Mr. Sage purposely used him as d s"e''
against the .iynaniter and thus escaped INJURY
The sui, was begun n May %, 1892 IT was caneu
for trial in the June following. and the coniP'"
was dismissed by Justice Andrews. The "ehe'
Term ordered new trial. 1t was heid III Ap"
1894 before Justice Patterson ana July ~"' ~
s,,,sd N a verdict for Mr. Laidlaw of s2oo" Inc
General Term reversed that hnding' anu I'M"
trial ~ Ja.uary 1895. resulted IN uiSaei -,
The fourth and last trial was before 'u''
graham and a jury in June last. IL Wa as 80,
decided yesterday. was taken 10 the'r oe'''' ~
justices say; ,.,. onn.aled
We are asked TO reverse the judgment apPer AL
t"ro an, ~ send tins cause back Tor NJ u.
from an. 80 ~ cnn,s ming over two hundred eNcep
lions appv.ng in various ways 10 aiiiO s ca n ar
thne' no. n i ,nG who presided the last trial
W. have carefully examined NE wl, 1a Character
fnd There WAS error committee % ~ a inrv
n call for the resubmissiOn OF the ISSUES ~ -,
The decision brushes aside the exceptions 10 'us.
tice Ingraham's charge to the jury IN 'ne ,,t,tno
With the single exception OF lne anti,eiv cor
of the burden OF proof the charse 20 and If there
rect on the main features objected TO- anu 70 The
was error in that parcVWa' are nexf to consider
tic errors assigned having been coinlt'uu tind
ihs w ippS coInsel for the defendant lays par
tcular stress upon the admission OF ,v comnsel
Oh snr ernir,ed 10 pursue the cross examination
OF Mr. Sage. Ballard who was n1t a ed'' under OBJ
lection that after the explosion ana whsm s MI Store
was receiving attention IN snEs said Something
abou, being protected about protection INA, me-
had had from the explosion Lhat inls II was
relied upon as an admission by sage that soie rs
had happened TO beneii MN pr aetuay sustained
and IL was sought to weave into he lao, - raj
p,hng ss occurred or could have occurred that
would have afforded protection except me very h e
fendant Raillard could not swear from personal
knowledge that Mr.. Sage was the person VINO '''aue
n Bid the Surrounding point to NJ
Sage the person who MADE the aeseu O'S,on
nell or one else; lie describes tiie Pei ST,'
pointed out. and the description described the oe-
showing pontedly that Mr. Sage was me Ps ncss
SoS are Satisfied NJ Sage made
are not to consider the testimony at ga an tho cnn
sideration OF the jury
Referring to the objection TO the cross-examina-
ton Of Mr.. Sage the Justices say:
1t entirely within the discretion o. the ,rial
lions dsparaging TO a witness. and not relevant 10
the issue We are not called upon 10 approve or
on the sbsS SIDE but to say that We
end no legal ground for reversal OF the Judgmenht
by reason Of any Of the msers connec'ea WIN nco one
trovertible that Mr.. Sage knew OF me uaheef, IN
Norcross's presence. and ladlaw DID not Mr.
Laidlaw says Sage put his hand. and gently ana
quietly drew him before him. and then spoke to Nor
cross. The jury believed Laidlaw
The opinion goes to anayze the evidence Of the
experts who testified the force and direction OF
certain explosives, introduced the trial. to show
that II I.aidlaw sheltered Mr. Sage the injuries TO
Mr. Sage's hands could not have occurred and con-
cudes:
If We could say at what fraction OF a second those
injuries were inflicted an argument might be drawn
to support the defendants view, but it all mat
ter OF conjecture and the argument OF imp3ssibity
cannot be allowed TO prevail we have dhHs con-
and Jealous counsel OF the defendant, and repeat
that we would he justified in subjectng these
better position now than it ever has been for the
ultimate judgment Of the Court OF Appeals. ana we
frming the judgment in such way that 1t may be
reviewed on this record In the light OF what we
conceive to be the true state of the case as II mas
said that we do consider the verdict excessive
unde~ all the circumstance Of the case The juds-
must be affirmed with costs
The nearly $50.