The Newtown bee., 1899-06-09
Litchfeld County.
NEW MILFORD.
SUIT OF BERNHARDT AGAINST CURTIS 10
BE TRIED AGAIN.

0C2A w ohR@NnAhD1 AdAIRSI CUHI1S
BE TRIED AGAIN.
The end Of the legal battle between
z. j. Bernhard & Son, against L. r. Cur
tls5of Bridgeport and New Milford, lis not
yet In sight. says the Bridgeport Stand.
ard. The trial of the suit brought by
the former against Mr. Curtis WAS one OF
the most stubborn in the history of Litch-
field county, it being tried. in New Nil.
ford, and indications now point to a con-
tinusnce of the battle along Just as sharp
ly drawn lines. Judge Rorab lck has set
aside the verdict against Mr. Curtis on
the ground that it is an excessive award
and has ordered that the case proceed to
a new trial. At the first trial the plain.
tiffs were awarded $3, 2S7 Al.
la taking this course he has delivered
himself of some very interesting remarks
the full decision being as follows:
! Memorandum of decision upon defen-
dant's motion for q new trial for he Yea-
son that the verdict is against the evil
dence:
1t must be conceded that the plaintiff
predicated upon that allegation in para.
graph of the complaint which states
that the plaintiffs coIfldirg inl the cove
nants of said lease, purchased a large
stock of millinery goods and ladies' fur
nishings.
Under the Instructions of the court,
tue widest possible latitude that could
have been correctly given by the jury in
fixing damages upon this branch OF the
case was from February to April l,
1897.
An examination Of the evidence makes
it very apparent that the jury in render
ing the verdict in question must have
not only misapplied but mistaken the
law and evidence applicable to this claim
and to the other allegation set forth In
the complaint.
The whole amount of goods shipped to
Bridgeport between February 8 and
April l was about So 800. These goods
were very largely purchased before Feb
ruary 8, when the lease was made and to
that extent constituted no basis for a
claim for damages.
1.-The same may be said of the goods and
furnishings claimed to have been reserved
and stored in New York.
AS there is nothing Of any. Importance
outside of this class of claims to which
reference has just been made which the
Jury under the Issues and the evidence
could have properly considered In reach
Ing verdict as to the plaintiffs damages
the court Is Of the opinion that the same
is manifestly and most palpably against
the evidence.
The jury with the great mass Of doc
umantary evidence before them, in the
short time taken by them to consider and
pass upon the same, did not correctly ap-
ply the evidence under the instructions
of the court, and think that this verdict
should be reversed and set aside.
While l have no disposition to imprep-
erly invade the province of the Jury az
they are the judges of the fact, under the
Instructions OF the court, as to the law.
and II the verdict was purely matter of
opinion as to question of damages in
an action for breach of promise or the
like should hesitate long before order
ing a new trial.
But the fundation of this action is
breach of contract, in which the damages
are capable of estimation upon certain
and well settled principles.
The damages assessed under these cir
cumstances are glaringly in excess of
the evidence in the case, and Justice re-
quires that their verdict should be re-
versed.
1t would be somewhat tedious and
difficult and the court does not deem it
best to indicate what sum should be re-
mitted.
The excess is somewhat uncertain and
very large in amount and therefore the
motion for q new trial is granted.
[Rorsback, judge
Nj