Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-02-03
LAWYERS QUERY
TERMINATES SUIT
Court Declares MistriaI in
$4,000 Action Against P. S.
After improper Question.

An improper question asked a wit
ness by George H. Lambert, of Lam
bert & Stewart, counsel for Mrs.
Mary Terzian, 81 C -ntral place, Or
ange. in her suit for 5000 alleged
damages claimed from the Public
Service Railway Company, which was
on hearing in the Circuit Court be-
fore Judge Frederick Adams all last
week, caused Judge Adams today to
declare q mistrial in the suit and dis
miss the jury.
The questions ruled as improper
by Judge Adams were asked last
Friday of Daniel Osterhout, of 10
Branford place, Orange. a witness
called by the Public Service, and who
had also acted as foreman of jury
ct the December, 1910, term of court
that had heard the case and failed
to agree on a verdict after long de-
liberation.
Mr.. Osterhout had, after that trial,
talked with Mrs Terzian at a time
when, she claimed, on the Witness.
stand, she was unable to walk with
out a limp, and Osterhout was called
to combat that testimony.
On cross.examination of Osterhout
last Friday Mr.. Lambert asked, You
were foreman of the jury, were you
not" asked Mr.. Lambert, "at the
last trial?'' referring to the first trial
of the case ending in disagreement
by the jury on November 20, 1910.
Mr.. Osterhout answered in the afflr-
native.
And there were eleven for YER
dict and you against 1t, were you
not?" continued Mr.. Lambert.
Mr.. McSherry, for the Public serv-
ice. Jumped to his feet with, rs that
q fair question, If your honor pleaseY'
TT is very improper" declared the
court.
Mr.. MacSherry then explained that
were it not for the fact that the
case had taken SO much time ana
involved so much expense he would
ask that the jury be discharged.
Certainly no counsel of experience
can possibly make an assertion OF
that character without knowing 1t is
highly improper he concluded.
sI am only trying to get at the
facts. that is all, Mr.. MacSherry. re-
piled MT Lambert.
Judge Adams closed the incident at
that time with the remark, You ran
the risk of having this jury dis
charged, Judge Lambert"
When the hearing of the case was
resumed today Judge Adams stated
that he desired to make an announce
ment in the case and reviewed the
testimony of Osterhout given on last
Friday. including the questions and
answers brought out by Mr.. Lambert,
which are given in full .aboven
Judge Adams then said: This &C.
currence casts upon me a responsible
ity which / must bear alone. | can
not share it with counsel on either
sode or with the gentlemen of this
Jury. The question is whether this
trial ought to proceed any further. l
suppose that counsel on both sides
would prefer to have me go on with
the case. in view of the fact that so
much time and money has already
been spent upon it,
He then defined the law of evidence
and said: 1.-THE law of evidence ex-
lists for two purposes; to define what
is fit and to define what is unfit to
go to jury. To administer this law
of evidence is the function of the
Judge.
THE question which was asked. inn
pulsively. perhaps. without due reflec-
ton and consideration, as think, by
the able counsel for the plaintiff. for
whom I have special regard, did. in
fact, introduce into this trial an ille-
climate and dangerous influence. and
did in fact jnstill into this trial
poison which no power of the court