Perth Amboy evening news., 1905-09-27
THE POINTS AT ISSUE.
Attorney for Copper Works States
Grounds for Asking Such
a Motion.
CAN BE TRIED OVER AGAIN.
If The Supreme Court So Decides, II
Can Again Set Aside
the Verdict.
Special to the evening News.

OpSSidl W tue EVenluS NEWS.
NEW BRUNSWICK. Sept. 27.-
The jury in the suit of Mrs. Laura
Humphries against the Raritan Copper
Works for $50, 600 for the death of her
husband, returned verdict in her
favor for $500 at l:55 o'clock this
afternoon, after having been out an
hour and a half
In summing for Mrs. Humphries,
Lawyer Silzer asked for Just that
amount this morning.
When the verdict was announced
Lawyer Depue, for the defense, ap-
piled to Justice Fort for rule to show
cause why this verdict should not De
set aside. Justice Fort said he would
grant it.
In the former trial of this case, the
verdict was for So, 900 and it was set
aside.
NEW BRUNSWICK, Sept. 27:--Jus-
tice Fort, at the adjournment of court
yesterday afternoon, denied a motion
of Lawyer Depue to direct verdict
in favor of the defendant in the suit
of Mrs. Laura Humphries against the
Raritan Copper works and the Jury
received the case this noon.
Lawyer Depue, at the end OF the
testimony, asked for verdict for the
defendant on several grounds taken
from his motion at the former trial
when he made like request. He
asked for direction OF verdict on the
ground that there was no proof of
lack OF inspection on the part OF the
defendant or of any breach of duty
which the defendant owed to the
plaintiffs.
Another ground was that there was
a preponderance of evidence as to the
of the switch where the
accident occurred and verdict there
fore for the plaintiff would not be sus-
tanned
a third ground was that Humph-
ries, at the time of the accident, acted
contrary to an order of his superiors
IN making flying switch and there
fore could not recover.
The fourth ground presented by the
lawyer was that if the switch was, as
the plaintiff contended, out of order,
the fisk was such that it must have
been known to or in the exercise
reasonable care and observance would
have been known to Humphries and
was therefore assumed by him.
Lawyer Depue started to argue on
this motion and Justice Fort asked
him If he had any particular point to
bring out. The lawyer said he wanted
to impress upon the court the matter
of the preponderance of evidence, but
the justice said 1t was not necessary
to argue even chat.
The court said that even if the evil
dence on the part of the plaintiff had
been less at this trial than it was at
the former one he would leave 1t to
the jury to decide as to the weight OF
Z CNltiChSC. 1u0 COuFb Vi eEFOFS SOU
aside the other verdict on the ground
that there was q preponderance Iof
witnesses on the part of the defen- 4
1ants.
IF the supreme court sees fit to do 4
.he same thing again." said Justice
Fort, Il can't help it. They can on. a
'ule to show cause send the case back
rs often as they see fit for retrial,
'ut will let " case go to the jury
The witnesses called for the defense
we're ThomasJ. Clark, Patrick Cooley,
Jacob Eldridge, Patrick Deery, Edgar
VI. Gradner, Joseph Russo, as an in +.
erpreter; Jonas Nuto, Joseph Rodel- I.
o, Lingi Quintella and William o.,
arc.
For the plaintiff in rebuttal We.
'alled Morris F. Burke, William Pal
ner. Henry Kaltenbach, Peter Peter
ION. William Nolan, Andrew Andeis N
on, Nathan Ward and Timothy y y