The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-05-05
BOTH AFTER 1T.
Plaintiff and Defendant Seek a New
Trial.
1t Was In the Case of Healey Against Con-
SOlidated Road.

The rather unique fact that both parties
were so thoroughly dissatisfied with the ver-
diet OF jury that they both potition6d for a
new trial was the reason for "A long hearing
in the Appellate Court this morning. The
case was that of John Healey against New
York, New Haven g. Hartford Railroad Com
pany.
There were two counts In the plaintiffs dec
laration, each alleging a separate injury. The
first accident was ON February II, 1893. az
which time Healey was working for the com
pany and IN uncoupling the head buggy
caboose car from the head Of the train had
his fingers caught i'm the coupling apparatus
and the middle finger OF his right hand lac.
Grated Healey on the lth OF March following
returned 10 work for the company and
worked until June III. when he was injured
IN collision that occurred owing 10 the disc
bedienco of orders by the engineer Of the
train on which Healey was employed, at Caro-
lima, when he lost the toe from one foot and
was seriously shaken up. The suit was TO re-
cover $1,000, and the jury awarded Healey
$500 under the first count, which accident
mentioned therein was claimed 10 be due 10 a
defective draw-bar.
The plaintiff in his petition for n new trial
alleges that his honor, Judge Rogers, the pre-
siding justice az the trial in the lower court.
erred in refusing to charge the jury re-
qnested by the plaintiff counsel 10 do,
namely, in refusing 10 charge that Pickering,
the engineer of The train at the time OF the
second accident, was asting as vice-principal
Of the defendant; that IL was the duty OF the
defendant 10 keep its tracks clear at Caro-
lima, and that the disobedience OF orders ny
the engineer did not release the defendant
from its liabilities for the plaintiffs injuries
received at Carolina. Other grounds OF OBJ
jec;ion To the judges charge were that in
charying the jury that the disobedience Of
orders by Pickering. il proved, entitled the
defendant 10 a verdict, and that the plaintiff
ana Pickering we're fellow servants.
Healey signed release for $3.50 after the
second accident, but his counsel says that the
signature Of Healey was affixed 10 the release
because he supposed that the money was
simply given him as wages for the time he
lost. The jury found the release had been
given and there was no fraud about IL.
The defendant company counsel, in OPP
posing the claims set up for a new trial,
claimed the verdict as TO the second count is
fully supported by the evidence; that the
plain tiff's injuries were occasoned by the act
Of fellow servant, and therefore be cannot
recover that the court did not err in refusing
10 charge as requested by the plaintiff, and
that the plaintiff at the time Of the com
mencoment Of his action executed release to
the defendant of all claims and causes OF ac-
tiOn.
In the brief of counsel in support Of defend
ants petition for new trial the mann points
are that the verdict of $500 in favor of the
plaintiff under the first count was inconsis-
tent with the jury's finding that the plaintiff
had given n release and that the damages
were excessive, the sum named being far too
much for the simple laceration of finger.
The special findings OF the jury in the case
were thought by the court TO be slightly i'm
consistent, for while one finding was tnat
there was no fraud in obtaining release an
other was to the effect that Hosley in signing
the releass did not know what he was doing.
The case was held for advisement.
t.. X. Parker was attorney for the plaintiff
and Frank $. Arnold attorney for the defend
ant.