The sun., 1903-11-08
THIS SUIT SEVEN TIMES TRIED.
Appealed Seven Times and Before the
Courts Twenty-One Years.

II any one were seeking to prove that
litigation in this State may be protracted
to unreasonable lengths, no might do worse
than to cite Williams against the Delaware,
Iackawanna and Western Railroad Com
pany, and rest his case right there.
That suit, which was begun twenty-one
years ago, has had seven jury trials, has
been before the old General Term OF the
Supreme Court and its successor, the APP
pellate Division, seven times and has twice
reached the Court of Appeals at Albany.
More than that. the last decision left op n
to the losing side a further right Of appeal.
1t all began in July. 1882. when Williams,
brakeman, was unwise enough to ride
on the roof of box car when it went under
bridge. The brakeman brought suit.
and after wait Of year and half q
jury gave him verdict Of $1,000.
The railroad company promptly ap-
pealed-that is. it started its appeal
promptly-but it wac two years later and
after two arguments that the General Term
ordered a new trial.
Then the brakeman began all over aigan,
and in May. 1885, another jury heard his
case and he got verdict for $500 An
other appeal and shorter wait this time.
In January, 1887, the General Term upheld
the decision
The defendant was not satisfied and the
case in due time reached the Court Of APP
peals. There was halt of nearly three
years before the next decision This came
in December, 1899, and reversed the General
Term, sending the case back to the trial
court.
A third jury heard the misfortunes of the
persistent brakeman in May, 1890, and this
time il was the defendants turn to win,
and the plaintiffs turn to appeal. The
brakeman was nonsuited and went to the
Ger eral Term again.
in 1895, the General Term upheld the lower
court, but the brakeman, nothing daunted.
took his case to Albany. The Court of
Appeals made its second decision in 1898,
and again ordered new trial.
After sixteen years of litigation the case
was now just where it start, d, except that
certain points of law involved had been
settled. The brakeman presented his case
to fourth jury and the fourth jury agreed
with the first and second, except as to the
amount This time the verdict was Tor
81 500. And the defendant appealed
BY this time, the General Term of the
Supreme Court had been abolished, but the
Appellate Division which succeeded was
ready TO welcome so old friend as VIII
liams against the Delaware, &c. The law
tldu pIttty "tn ciuNcnSN oNe -.
case, but the Appellate Division decided
that the verdict was against the weight OF
the evidence, and sent the case back TO the
trial court once more.
This Was the start of what, to the lay
man. seems to have been a contest or en-
durance between the jury and the higher
court. A fifth presentation TO jury OF the
brakeman's mishap brought him a verolct
Of 81 900.
The Appellate Division again set aside
the verdict on the same grounds. The slxth
jury that heard the case took the sans
view as the fifth, and fixed the damages AT
the same amount, but the higher court
had not altered its views and ordered the
case back again.
The case got its seventh jury trial year
or so ago. The plaintiff won again. but
only s4,5O0 this time. a..
This verdict was at last affirmed py tne
APPELLATE Division in decision handed down
in March of this year. The court repeats lts
assertion that the verdict is unwarranteo
bv the evidence, but makes what might oe
described as a ruling Of three times ana
out i'll. =,
The defendant still had left, right OF
going TO the Court of Appeals, ana thIs
twenty-one-year- action may sun nave
n few wears of life left in it. What ~ mas
cost the fighters, only they know. Ger
tainly the railroad would have saved money
by paying the first $4,000 Veruob-