Perth Amboy evening news., 1905-09-29
MRS. FUCHS
GETS $4,000.
Jury in Suit Against Lehigh
Valley Railroad Decides in
Widows Favor.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Defined the Law Relating to-
Railroad Crossings The
Care Necessary.
Special to the Evening News:'

NEW BRUNSWICK, Sept. 29.--
The jury at the second trial OF the
: $4,000 damage suit of Mrs. JOSEF
phine Fuchs, as Administrative of
the estate Of her husband, Joseph
Fuchs, against the Lehigh Valley
railroad, returned verdict, last
light, of $4,000, an increase of $500
over the former verdict which was
set aside by the court of errors. The
jury went out at 5.25 o'clock and re-
turned their verdict about an hour
later.
This is the second big verdict Law
yer George S. Silzer had secured in
damage suits in two days, the jury In
the damage suit of Mrs. Laura
Humphries against the Raritan Cop
per works having given verdict
Wednesday afternoon in her favor
for $15, ,000 Application was made
in that case for rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set
aside and the rule was granted. In
this case Former Justice Collins for
the defendants will make application
for such a rule next week some day
when Justice Fort is>sitting at Eliz-
abeth.
Justice Forts Charge.
Justice Fort gave forcible charge
to the jury in this case, and in doing
so, set forth the law regarding the
approach of railroad crossing, this
suit being for the killing of Mr..
Fuchs at the Valentine crossing of
bn
uchen.
In approaching a crossing of q
railroad a stringent obligation is
placed upon every citizen to exercise
care. He must be cautious as the
danger is apparent and the greater
the danger the greater care he
should exercise. Under the lhw he
must at least do two things: look.
and listen. The jury was to say
whether Fuchs looked and listened
as a prudent man should and wheth-
er the conditions Of this crossing
were such that he should have done
anything else to protect himself be-
side looking and listening.
Railroads Duty.
The law had also placed q duty
upon the railroad of ringing the en-
gine bell for a distance of 900 feet
till the engine is across the crossing
or blowing the whistle at frequent
intervals. The court told the jury
the PROC / this case did not justify
them in D.. wing there was any extra Z
/ hazard placed near the crossing by
the company. The natural growth
of trees could not be called an extra
hazard. The plain proposition was
as to whether the bell rang or not,
the defendant having admitted that
the whistle was not blown. If the
bell rang, no matter whether one
hears it or not, there can be no re-
covery under the law as the ringing
of the bell was all that the railroad
was required to do under the law.
But before they could bring in
verdict the court held they must al
so find that Fuchs did not contribute
to the company's negligence by being
careless himself. The defense con-
tended that the photographs OF the
crossing introduced in the case
showed he must have been negligent,
but the court cautioned the jury that
photographs were to be used with
the greatest care as much depended
upon how they were focused and
where the camera was.
Must Not Take Chances.
If Fuchs took the chances think
ing he had time to cross there could
be no recovery. 1t was also for the
! jury to say whether he should have
made a second look before crossing
the tracks and whether he had the
opportunity so to do.
On arriving at the damages, IL
they found for the plaintiff, he told
them to make their award in cold
dollars and cents allowing nothing
for the pain and suffering. loss of
society, of the husband or sympathy.
They should give the widow a eapi-
tai fund or what the family would
have gotten from the husband during
| the eleven years or so he might live,,'
/ the age of seventy as the time of hi
natural death being considered in
connection with his age, fiftytnine
years, at the time he was killed.
This fund was to be placed at its
present value to the family.
/