The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-09
MANY CASHS DECIDED.
Supreme Court Renders De-
cisions in a Large
Number Of Suits.
VAN sYCKEL FAVoRs RAILROADS.
All the Hudson Veterans Dismissed
by the Freeholders. Except
Norman Rowe, Reinstated-
VAN SYCKEL FAv0RS RAILROADS.

Especial to 1.-THE Jersey City News."1
TRENTON. Nov. $, 1s9I.-It was opinion
day in the Supreme Court yesterday and
a large number Of decisions were rem
dered.
One of the most important opinions
filed, and one which is also of special
local interest, was rendered by Justice
Van Syckel, in the case of the Philadel-
phia and Reading Railroad Company
against the State. The Supreme Court
sets aside an Indictment against the
railroad for maintaining a nuisance in
Ewing township, in the form of a cross
ing alleged to be more han ordinarily
dangerous to the public on account of
the surroundings of the crossing Itself
and the manner in which the defendant
operates it's trains. The cross
ing is that at the Asylum station, and is
well known by every one who has occa-
sion to drive in that direction.
Prosecutor Bayard Stockton had the
ompany indicted, and it was convicted
in Mercer Court, Mr.. Stockton appearing
for the State and Attorney General
Samuel Fl. Grey for the railroad com
pany.
III important part of the opinion from
the legal standpoint is found in the syl-
labus, which says
A railroad company can be required
to give such signals only of the approach
of trains as the Legislature has pre-
scribed, unless the crossing has some
peculiarly dangerous feature occasioned
by the act of the company itself in con-
structing it's roads or buildings.
At the trial below, the railroad com
pany's counsel asked the Court to charge,
among other things, substantially the
principle that the Supreme Court lays
down in the syllabus.
In establishing this principle Justice Van
Syckel quotes from al opinion of the late
Chief Justice Beasley, in which it was
held that railroad companies are not
called upon to keep fiagmen undo ordi-
nary circumstances at cross roads; nor to
give any other notice Of the approach of
trains than those signals that are pre-
scribed by-statute, and that if greater
safeguards are required for the safety OF
the community, and those public agents
are to be put under greater restrictions
in the exercise of their franchise, such
e-ontrivances must proceed from the Leg
~islature, and not from the judicial power.
While agreeing that these additional
burdens cannot be imposed by the court,
Justice Van Syckel is equally emphatic
in declaring that the companies may by
their own conduct impose such burdens
on themselves. He holds that if one of
them builds its tracks in such a way as
to unnecessarily make the use OF a public
road dangerous, it should by its own
= - lx.11 ~ barra oc.11r1el fhA 0hli-
cation of compromising the public for
the increased danger by the use OF addi-
tional safeguards. h reasonable ana
Indispensable implication, says the oplh-
ion. is that the railway is TO be so con-
structed as not unnecessarily to Interfere
with the safe use of the public roads.
The opinion concludes by saying that
the defendants were entitled to have the
Jury charged as requested without any
qualifications. The trial judge added the
proviso that If a railroad company, IN
exercising it's right under the charter OF
the State to select Il place TO cross the
highway. which was manifestly without
any dangerous conditions or cireuna-
stances attending 1t, the Would
not be called upon to exercise inc Same
amount of care as they would II they
had selected a place where it was mann
festlv more dangerous. He instructed
tho Jury that the degree of care ana
prudence required would be reSulafea
by the place selected by the company Aoi
The Supreme Court Ids that this
charge was calculated to mislead the
defendant of the benefit of it, and for
this reason the judgment below was re-
versed.
49, a. 49, ~ Ca1,, ~ En1lr WINS Chs
tanned. He was indicted for maintain
a disorderly house where gambling
and pooi-selling was carried on extern
sively. NEeDermott and Fisk carried the
case to the Supreme Court, alleging err
rors below in the admission of certain
Part of the evidence objected
to was given by a visitor at the resort,
who heard people there say: re
at the hair" etc, going on to explain
what these terms meant. The Supreme
Court holds that while this was technlcai
the witness testified as an ex-
pert when he said he was in the habit OF
the place.
The action of the Hudson County
Freeholders providing for the erection
of a bridge over the Morris Canal, in
Jersey City. by the Morris Canal and
RANKIN Company, was set aside, the
holding that the plans called for a
which would unnecessarily inter-
In the damage suit of John b. Smith
arainst the Consolidated Traction Com
D9ny the court decided that the injuries
sustained by the plaintiff were the result
HIS own negligence in falling to COM
ply with the company's rules. The ver-
dict secured below was therefore set
aside.
The Indictment Of Lewis Fl. Broome.
the architect of Jersey City's new City
was set aside as Illegal. The ques-
tion involved was whether or not
in his capacity of architect OF a
municipal structure, was a city official.
The court decided hat he was not a city
oficial. and orders hat the indictment
he uuashed. Broome designed the plans
for the new Assembly Chamber in the
In the case of the city of Bayonne
against the East Jersey Telegraph and
Telephone Company, Justice Collins set
aside an order of the Hudson Circuit
authorizing the erection of poles BY the
in Bayonne.
Justice Van Syckel rendered the
opinion of the Court in the case of Will
Aston against William Heller,
Sheriff of Hudson county, in which he
sets aside a demurrer filed by the Sheriff.
The Court decides that there is no
ground for action on the part of the
in the case of Asbury Foun-
tain and others against the city of Perth
The suit was n involving an
action for tresnass.
A ~peremptory mandamus is ordered
the case of John w. Stewart against
Hudson County Board of Chosen