The sun., 1910-05-29
4FTV WOUDSFUON THB BENCH
~ TINE CITI'S WEAK DEFENCE
~ NEGLIGENCE CASES.

80 tnrlza@s tAs sss=Sasss TaS iAw,
Rapld Tranuit Faciiltlea. New Mub.
uays and the Time Mpent N CPlil.
"lsing C0naemnation CsmmluslSncEs.
Nnm a jury before Supreme Court
is,'ce Ford had returned a verdict Tor
~ SO Yesterday In a negligence case
cart the ,ity oi New York and q con-
ln- drm. the Court took occasion
comment on the manner In which the
orDOranon COunsel's once prepares
iefencs in such cases. In comparison
-. > ths defence q private litigAnts.
70 oass az bar Was a suit of Michanl
N,NAmara, a yacht engineeT. against the
ny and the contracting firm Of Terry A
rsnch. MoNamarA was passing under
ne nsE Riverside Drive viadnct at iTIth
.rreet N October. loO7. when a board
'eI' - and struck him on the haad.
think MIR. Watson might very well
devote his attention 10 the manner Of
conducting negligence Gases against the
CITY n New York. said Justice Ford
when the jury had reported. Perhaps
thsl he would have lens tims 10 oritioias
Justices Of the supreme Court for ap-
nnatng condemnation commissioner.
70 sneyes me. it u lAmentsbls that when
'-s riiy ~ NsW Nork Is = defendant In
r7sse negligence cases tho defence Of
iHe city IL 70 Weak In comparison with
lhe defence u private defendAntA.
'hlnk ! might almost s~y that IL il notori.
lis and recognized by the justices Of
the Supreme Court generally that the
rty Of NeN York as a defsndAnt IL lssa
. sNciently represented before the court
m these cases than private persons or
corporations that come before the court.
am disposed TO suggest that Mr.. Watson
might ~ occupy his mind rather than
,riticising justices OF the Supreme Court
Now that is q matter Of public record and
any newspaper man or other man who
wants Il may have Il
Assistant Corporation Counsel ColBna
then stated that he represented the city
IN negligence cases and that he wns nrAc.
tcally the bead Of the division. He sSsed
the Court 10 make his remarks more
specific and state any one case where in.
edlolency OF lack Of defence had been
Mr. Watson himself nav communicate
With me personally. and think perhaps
that is the best way. II he wants 10 know
why and where, said the Court.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Price,
who had defended the Mcnamara casa
for the city, then inquired II the Courts
Feuarks had been occaaioned by ANYTHING
occurring In the case al bar. and Justice
Ford said
No. ] see private defendants i'm
pleaded with the city 10 much better prp.
pared 70 make a defence than the city Il.
and assume some little privilege in rnAk.
ing thess remarks becAuNe I have lone
many things for this city Of ours. These
twenty millions OF Franchise taxes that
are turned into the treasury Of the city Of
New York. think may say with an due
modeSty, were due 70 my own personal
Efforts ~ author Of the sperial franchiea
tax law. | Interested myself a. senator
and since was senator In providing rarid
rrarSit facilities for the city and the new
-u6ways that are projected are going
% ne Constructed under statutes that /
1rew myself. think that may modsstly
q ClAim that { arm more directly re-ronsibis
tor the change IN the rapid transit act that
enables the city 10 build subways and
own and control them than any other
peraOn IN the city Of New York. and h
srIcves me much 10 see thar the public
interests are not a. effectively safeRuardad
as private interests. That Il the siin and
substance " IL. ] have made a great
many sacrifices for the public. I think.
and have q deep interest in zafeRuarding
public rights, and | think thar is one Of
the moving causes u my remarks II
aAs been cumulative. The trouble with
your defence h the class Of Witnesses
Mr. Collins asked the Court Il be woulI
state that what he had In mind was prin-
CipAlly the character Of the witnesses
and Justice Ford replied, -No. that 4
only q partial statement OF the matter.
MT. Collins wanted 70 know n Justice
Ford would say whsther he criticised the
ability with which counsel for the CITY
conducted themselves, and the Court
said:
4 have no reflection and don't want IN
be understood a. criticising the conduit
Of the oases IN court by counsel that rep
resent the city. but I do think that Mr.
Wateon and don't direct my criticism
Particularly 90 him. but 10 his pradecasuorv
IN 0nlcs ~ Weli-that their system OF pre-
pairing their deisnces II not a. eficient
A.. say, the defence Of the Metropolitan
street Railway Company and othars 1
snow how faithfully and how hard you
and Mr. Price and the others who appear
heforp me represent the city. work %
render Efficient service. but there IL some
thing wrong with the system among the
men above, sOmething that you are not
responsible for. but which ought 70 bs /
remedisd In some way in the public
Interest
J would like 10 know how said Mr..
collins.
n I went into the details, I might suR-
Eest hut ] think Il would BE- unssemly |.