The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-09-04
FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

at a point Mhene there was no barrier
for several years, the old barrier having
rotted down. In Hewetts suit against
the town for damages for the injuries
he received the evidence tended TO show
that the night was SO dark that, al
though familiar with the locality he
could not see the road, but depended
on his horse which was walking. There
Twas curve in the road at the place Of
the accident. and if the horse had gone
straight ahead he would have walked
off the bank, but neither the horse nor
the wagon fell down the bank. The
third appellate division, reversing a dis
missal Of the complaint on the trial.
held by Justice Merwin, that the ques-
tons whether the commissioner Of high
ways was negligent in failing to erect
a barrier at that place and whether the
accident was attributed 10 such neg4-
gence, and whether the plaintiff was
guilty Of contributory negligence. were
i for the jury. Presiding Justice Parker
and Justice Herriek dissented.
The South Carolina Railway having
defaulted in payment Of interest on its
bond issue Of 5000, 600 and the com
pany's property being about to be sold
/ on foreclosure Of the mortgage to Sc
cure the bonds, certain of the bond
/ holders entered into an agreement with
mittee was intrusted with the manage
ynent and control of the bonds, with
! power TO act within certain limits, and
TO call meetings of bondholders under
| certain conditions In pursuance of
this agreement, the consent Of a large
number Of the bondholders was obtain
| ed ana an agreement was reached by
which, under the terms Of sale pre-
| scribed by the judgment Of foreclosure,
! they were enabled TO purchase the prop
erty. The agreement itself provided
| that II should not be effective until a
majority of the bondholders had signed
/ IL. Joseph l.. Morse, Jr., a bondholder
who had not signed such agreement,
/ brought suit in behalf Of himself and
all others as creditor and holder Of
1 the bonds against Peter Geddes and
others for an accounting and for other
relief. A demurrer to the complaint
1 has been sustained by Justice Slower,
who held that the plaintiff, a bondhold-
er who had not signed the agreement,
was not entitled TO relief against such
sale or for an accounting in the abb
sence Of actual fraud; and that a mere
/ characterize ion Of the agreement as
wrongful" without the allegation of
any facts showing that it was such, was
not sufficient to charge a wrong in fact
One bondholder was held not to be a
trustee for another, as the result simply
| Of a common interest in the nortgaged
property. The court also held that the
relief asked for in the present action
should be denied on the ground of
laches.
| A novel accident case was lately be-
| fore the appellate division in Brooklyn.
| In June, 1898, Lena Leigh was a
| passenger on car of the Newburg
electric railway, which runs from New
burg to Walden, a distance Of twelve
! miles. There being a high wind blow
/ ing, the conductor, at the request of
| some Of the passengers, had pulled
down some Of the curtains on the
| windward side. The bottom Of the
curtain was held IN place by q rod, the
/ ends Of which had caps which ran up
/ and down in grooves in the sides Of the
| stanehions supporting the roof of the
car. A heavy gust Of wind striking
| the curtain, the bottom became loose,
| and one end of the rod struck Lena
| Leigh violent blow, INJECTING injuries
for which she sought damages in an
! action against the railway company.
! She was accorded a verdict for $500
| on the trial, but on appeal the 1udg-
/ ment was reversed, the appellate div
| ision holding that the railway company
was not liable, It appearing that the
! curtains, which We're OF pattern in
/ StIEldl use upon d great many rail-
| roads, has been placed in the car by a
| reputable firm of car builders, and that
an examination Of the road previous to
] the accident would not have disclosed
! any defect. Presiding Justice Good
| rich, who gives the opinion of the court
! says: I'VE cannot hold that COM
mon carrier of passengers is bound to
/ use the very highest degree Of care in
respect TO the curtain rods Of Its cars
he aaff. ,1r,t1 4,
! sonable care, adequate TO the use OF the
appliance and to the probable results OF
i it's use. 1t was not bound to foresee
and prevent such an unusual and not
| to be expected accident as that devel-
i oped by the evidence" Justice Wood
| ward dissented, saying that he did moi
! think that portion of the side of a
| vehicle, designed to protect passengers
/ from the weather, is such a minor de-
tail as to relieve the carrier from the
burden Of proving that 1t was not al
! fault IL such a portion of the side is
4 shown 10 have been too weak to with
i stand the wind, and as a direct result
4 Of such weakness passenger in the ex-
ercise of due care is injured.
i In a recent case the New York court
i of appeals rendered an interesting de-
cision regarding the rights OF a mum.
| cipality TO lay out grass plots and
/ plant trees on the sides of its streets
and to guard the same from injury by
means of curbing or other protection
The plaintiff sued to recover for perso.
nal Injuries sustained by being thrown
fro.a a sleigh which ran against large
stone placed at a street corner to pro-
tect tree and grass plot against We
hicles. AT the time Of the accident this
stone WAS covered with snow. In the
trial court the plaintiff recovered a YER
dict, which was affirmed by the appel
late division, but the court Of appeals
been granted. The court holds that the
stone was a lawful protection the
same as a curbing, hydrant, or tele-
graph pole, and in the absence Of evi
dence of negligence there was nc
ground OF recovery.