New-York tribune., 1899-01-11
RUSSELL SAGE WINS AGAIN.
LArp1.Aw's JUDGMENT FOR S43.10i q SET
ASIDE
THE COURT OF APPEALS SAYS THERE is NO
PROOF THAT SAGE CAUSED LADIAws IN

THE COURT OF APPEALS SAYS THERE II y"
PROOF THAT SAGE CAUSED LAIDLAw's IN
JrR1Es FROM THE EXPLOSION.
Albany. Jan. lo-Thc Court OF Appeals has re-
vcrsed the Judgment In favor OF ". r. l.aidlaw
against Russell Sage. growing out OF the dynamite
explosion In the laters office In ls'l. ana mas
granted a new trial The case has had -FOUR triais
The appeal on this occasion was by MI S3Se no'
a verdict entered a, the trial term in favor OF
the plaintiff for s4310i ,5. The action was begun OH
May g. 1892 On the nrst trial the complaint was
dismissed: on the second the Jury gave n verdict
for s25 co., on the third trial the jury disagreed
The plaintiff alleged in substance that he was
employed a clerk in the Office OF John boodsooh
& Co.. and that on December l. 1891. he was sent
TO Mr. sage's office. While there he found MI
Sage in conversation with person unknown 10
him who carried bag In his hand ana was
making threats to Mr.. Sage. Mr. Sage, ne alleged
fearing bodily injury. pushed the pla'ntH pet"ee"
him and the other person, thereby snieidins MINI
self The unknown person dropped the baS' caus-
ing terrific explosion TO follow. and Aaidiaw was
seriously injured
Tho answer admits that such person was In
Mr. sages office ard had demanded large sum
Of money. at the same time making threats ou'
IL denies that Mr. Sage interfered with the pihi'-
tiff by pushing him to the fore. Norcross was 'nc
name OF the dynamter, and he was nio"sn 70
r,eces Mr. Sage's Office then AT No. Il Broadway,
wrecked.
The Court O. Appeals in granting new trial
expresses great sympathy for Laidaw. but says
that sympathy cannot be permitted 70 nave an!
influence In reaching legal decision on the merits
Of the case. The opinion was written py 1uuse
Martin and is concurred in BY all the o'heG JUDGES
Of the Court Among other things the op'hon
says
himself Confronted with a terrible danger. and y
ne maintained any great degree OF selI.SohraU, h-
,h Of rCv
quite rare indeed The duties of person son, con,
onted with sea, danser are m 1nHea HSanary duties
Of fe welesabl.hed prnspe r,nc Of iaT inaefn IN s
the trial court recognized tn,s aoc.c'' w was " calm
T. The oniy witness whose testimony is relied upon
defsSsn % shSM A"s was the rain, himself He no, only
hs all the Interest roo " tai pahTy h memoy no
very seriously impaired Upon the other hamo' me ne
hit Ssps on Se defendant and Used
a shield Al the time Of the explosion -.,.us,oa
hy Afl be proof and uncontradcied which tend to
show that the plaintiffs theory that ne was IN amed roe
BY the pan the detsndan emPoyedd mp nd he hs noes 5oes
6t 6ow snf the pmises which were found the defend
ANTS DoSy N h especsy spe siHT IT, G as is the
theory the explosion followed In two straignt IIrS
b No csncusUn Sne ssn Tsan ha he utterly failed a
the plaintiff more seriously injured nrn inan ne ne
would naKe nesn en-, II s,dnd ms nI the Explosion was the
nroyimate cause of the plaintiffs INJURY me nt.
ferdan; cannot be held responsible we 40 ,,npa npo
was no question 0, proyimate cause in this case,
Wien we ap9y TO the undisputed facts OF TINS case
the rules relating 10 proximate cause, II becomes
quite rnarifesi that the Judgment IN TINS actioh
cannot be upheld All the injuries which me pam,
Tiff sustained were caused directly ny me aCI VI
Ncrcross in exploding the dynamite. That was
clearly the proyimate. and. we think. the ohl|
cause Of the plaintiffs injuries.
Joseph H. Cholie counsel for william R. Laidla"
ir. scented to be surprised when Informed yester-
day afternoon that the Judgment secured by MS
client against Russell Sage had been set aside ny
the Court OF Appeals and new trial orGercc
Il am sorry to hear that" he said. II have not
the decision yet. but suppose there VIII DC