The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-03-13
MRS. SCOTT WINS
Supreme Court Evidently
Moved By Circumstant-
ial Evidence.


The recent decision Of the Supreme
tanned by Mrs. Barbara Scott in a suit
against the North Jersey Street Railway
Company tried in the Hudson circuit Of
the Supreme Court short time ago. illus
trates the value placed by the courts on
the circumstantial evidence adduced by
the plaintiffs counsel.
The action was for the negligent killing
Of the p.aintiffs husband at the corner
of Grand and Henderson streets. on March
a. 1850. Mr.. Scott, who was a fireman
attached to No. ltraek. at Grand and
Van Worst streets, boarded a car at that
corner to ride TO his home in Lafayette
at about six o'clock in the evening of the
day mentioned.
Scott was standing on the rear plat
form near the step when the car stopped
at Henderson street and he stepped off
the platform to allow a woman 10 get on.
As to what transpired afterwards, five
witnesses produced by the defendant
company and who said that they were
on the platform and looking at Scott when
he fell. testified that he simply collapsed
because of an epfleptic seizure or some
thing of that sort. Only one witness
swore that the fireman was thrown by
the sudden starting of the car as he was
boarding It. Four other passengers VINO
were inside of the car testified TO a set
Of circumstances that corroborated this
witness and their evidence no doubt had
much to do with the jury returning its
verdict for the plaintiff.
This circumstantial evidence consisted
of statements that the car had stopped
twice at the corner mentioned, the wo-
man getting on at the first stop, and there
not being room for her to get on until
some passenger left the platfor; the sud
den starting Of the ear just as the woman
got on; the noise of the man falling after
she had got to the doorway of the car;
the shout from the rear afterwards to
stop the car; the position Of Scott lying
in the street after the accident his feet
facing in the direction the car was go
ing, and the fact that he lay about TWEEN
ty-fve feet from the rear of the car when
it stopped the second time.
These circumstances corroberat tive OF
the testimony Of the one witness pre- .uced
by the plaintiff. who said he was on the
platform at the time Of the accident, must
have outweighed in the minds Of the court
and jury the evidence of the five witnesses
produced by the defence. who testified to
a state Of facts directly at variance with
the circumstances referred to.
The contention of the plaintiffs counsel
was that when Scott attempted to sfsp
on the platform after the woman had gst
aboard the car started suddenly throwing
him in such a way that the back OF his
head struck the stone pavement fractur-
ing his skull. He died at St. Francis's
Hospital the next morning.
The witnesses produced by the defend
ant company testified that at the time
Scott fell the woman did not get ON the
car: that he was seized with some sort of
a fit and that his head struck the pave
ment as he collapsed.
AS the case was brought to the Su-
preme Court on rule to show cause why
a new trial should not be granted. ard
not on writ of error it cannot be taken
up again and the judgment obtained in
the lower court must be paid with IN
terest.
Ex-Judge Thos F. Noonan represent
ed the plaintiff in the action and Vre-
denburgh. Wall and Van WinAle the de-
fendant company.