The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-06-15
Granted Consolidated Road
in Healy Case.
Jury's Special Findings Held
TO Be Inconsistent.
rdict Also Declared Inconsistent
With the Findings.

The decision OF the Appellate Court IN
the cas-, of John Healy VS. New York,
New Haven az Hartford Railroad Com
pany, which was handed down today, is
an interesting one. The case was ore In
which both parties potitioned for new
trial, the plaintiff hein0 dissatisfied with
AN award of $500 made 90 nim by jury
on Feb. llth, 1885, ana the de.endnnt cor
Ioration's counsel filed and argued nine
distinct grounds for "A new trial.
The plaintiff sued 20 recover for damages
I'm two accidents while ne was IN the
employ Of the dciendnnt corporation as
brakeman. On the l7th day Of February,
1888, In this city whie no was engaged IN
coupling cars the first accident occurred.
the Plaintiffs fingers hvlDg crushed. leo
second accldent occurred nt Carolina on
June III. 1898, ana as the result ot col
lisiDn 10 plaintiff was thrown from u car
anI falling under a cnr bad mis- foot badly
crushed, aid IL VAS nece sary 10 ami utato
a toe
The jurys award wns for the first acci-
dent but Healy had signed "a release OF
Mi claims on account of this accident.
Tne o, iniOn Of the court which was
written py MIR. Justice Tllinghast deals
sharply with tie Jury's verdict and Is In
favor OF the railroad company.
Tho principal parts Of .he opinion are
as follows: ''Of the nine distinct grounds
upon which the deiendant bases its peti'
tion for 'ew trial we will consider but
one, for the reason that we are OF the
opinion that a new trial must be granted
on that ground. and it therefore becomes
unnecessary 10 consiler the others
Tho eighth ground on which the dcfen-
dant relies Is this: because the verdict
upon the first count of tie plaintiffs =
declaration as found, is against the special
findings of tho jury and inconsistcnt
ihcfeHlth.' ~
The Special Findings.
TIE special lniings referred TO are as
follows: The rriense marked ID and dated
April "a, 1893, was executed by the plain
f4ff by his ILaking Ills mark, I'm the pres
ence Of George W. Hobbs. The plaintiff
uid executc said release marked ID yolun-
tGrily ann of DIS own free Will; the re-
lease mnrkei ID was read to the plaintiff
before its execution by Mr.. Hobbs; the
release marked ID was not obtained by the
fraud of any agent or servant of the do
fendant; the plaintiff did not know what
he was executing when he executed the
release marked ID: the plaintiff could not
read at the time the release marked ID Is
claimed 10 ave hcen executed.
The release referred to in these special
findings was as follows;
''k1ow all men, that /. John Healy,
have received OF the New York, New
haven a. Hartford Railroad Company
tho sum OF f[i. oO IN ltll IugIneut, us
charge, release and satisfaction of all
claim, demands and causes OF action
whatsoever and especially of and from all
claims and demands against said COM
panv on account Of injuries To person,
sustained by me by having my fingers
crushed while uncoupling cars at Proyi-
oence X. l., on the 18th day of Febru-
AIRY, 1893. and,of all damages on account
of suchsinjuries. 1t was properly executed.
Continuing the opinion states IL Will bo
clearly seen that the special findings are
inconsistent with themselves and olso in
consistent with the general verdict Of
guilty. The last finding Is held so clearly
inconsistent with those that precede IL "a
to show that the jury must have been
mistaken either as To It, or as TO the |
others. And as 10 Is impossible for the
court TO determine wherein the mistake !
exists IL must hold that the entire findings |
were "a nulity. III the release was yolun-
tarily executed py the plaintiff after IL
was read 20 him, and no fraud was prac.
ticed upon him In obtaining IL, then IL
was bar TO this action and the yerdct !
should have been for the defendant, as
1t was only by ignoring IL as n valid and |
binding Instrument that the plaintiff |
could be allowed 10 recover. Tho jury |
have. the court says. practically found |
both ways as 10 the release, first that IL !
was binding. and second that IL was Of no |
avail, and have based their verdict upon |
tne ldtttF LD6Dfy. Outn "A NGrulCL OF /
course cannot be allowed TO stand And |
here we may, the court continuing says |
wo may suggest that it would be we'll |
for the trial court, In its discretion, 10 |
limit as far as may be the number of is |
sues submitted TO the jury under the |
statute, in order that they may not bo |
confused, and that such questions as arc |
necessarily involved In the general yer. !
dict may be excluded as far as possible
from the special findings. For the rea-
sons above given the defendants petition |
for new trial Is granted on the first
count.
The Plaintiffs Petition.
As to the plaintiffs petition for n new
trial on the second count In the declara- |
tion, which dealt with the second accl- |
dent, the court deals with the question /
arising at much length. the chief point |
involved being that Of whether an engi. |
Deer who dis1beyed orders was a fellow I
servant with Brakeman Healy, who was
injured. The jury gave the plaintiff no |
damages for this accident. |
The facts of the second accident were |
briefly a. follows; On the 18th day Of |
June, 1893, the train upon which the |
plaintih was brakeman left StoEington |
for Providence and arrived at Carolina at /
about a. m. Prior 20 arriving at this /
station the train had stopped at Mood |
River Junction, in pursuance OF a signal |
% receive orders Up to this time the |
train had been run on the east bound /
crack, which was the regular track for |
this train to run on The train was un.
der the government Of the conductor |
Joseph r. Adams At the last named |
station train order was delivered 90 tho |
conductor directing him 90 run his train
from that point 20 Kingston on the west