The Monmouth inquirer., 1924-01-31
Monmouth County Courts

| Judge r. V. Lawrence In the court Of
common pleas Wednesday directed a
Jury to return verdict against Michael
Vataska, Pole, of Cartaret, who was
suing the New York and New Jersey
Cleaning and Dyeing company Of
Asbury Park for $4,000 for injuries
received when he YVES struck b. an
automobile owned by that concern.
Attorney Harry Cooper Of Belmar rep
Presenting Vataska, said he would APP
peal the verdict.
| Attorney Cooper said he would ap-
peal because Judge Lawrence's di-
rection to the jury Of contributory
negligence on Vataska's part was a
question the jury should have decid-
ed.
Vataska was struck by one Of the
dyeing company's cars last October
on the Como-Squankum road, He
lost an eye as result Of the &C
cident
The Buchanon and Smock Lumber
company Of Asbury Park Wednesday
was granted q Judgment OF $4,075.33 by
Judge Lawrence againsg Elwood John
son and William Doremus, both said to
be residents of Asbury Park, for CON
signment of building materials
Attorney j. Otto Rhome represented
the Lumber company.
Theodore Lehigh of Bradley was
successful In suit In the common
pleas court at freehold Thursday re-
covering Judgment against Samuel
Siegel, q vegetable merchant of
Bradley Beach in the amount Of $358.
The case was tried before Judge
Ruff v. Lawrence and q jury
Ward Kremer Of Asbury Park APP
pearing for Lehigh and Joseph NJ
Turner representing Siegel.
The suit arose out Of an automobile
accident which occurred June 30, 1923
when one of Siegels delivery trucks
operated by an employe of Siegel ran
into a Ford Sedan which was driven
and owned by Lehigh. The acci-
dent occurred at the intersection Of
LaReine and Central avenues in
Bradley Beach and the Lehigh car,
according TO the testimony, turned
over twice and was badly danag-
ed.
Siegel's defense was two-fold. He
said first that the driver. Of his truck
at the time Of the accident was not
really in his employ, and in the sec
ond place that he was minor at
the time of the accident and there
fore not responsible for the negligent
conduct Of his servants. His mother,
Alma Hiegel. was produced and swore
that Samuel was born IN kovna
Russia, on Christmas day, 1908. and
/ that as q result on June 20, 1928, he
was not yet Of age. 1t appeared that
at the commencement OF the suit
against Siegel, he had not pleaded
infancy. On cross examination Sieg-
| ell was asked by counsel flor the
plaintiff why he had not set up his
| youthfulness when the case was first
! brought against him. He stated that
| he did not know at that time that it
was q defence. 1t was further de-
veIoped that Siegel attends the New
| York Law school and as a law stu
dent, and before the case went TO
the jury it was admitted by the defense
that SiegeI himself had uncovered the
legal fact that infancy was a defense.
| In this situation it was insisted by
Judge Kremer that Siegel had manu-
featured his infancy for the special pur-
pose Of the case.
In his charge to the jury Judge
Lawrence instructed them that they
must first find as a fact whether or
not Siegel was of age and then assess
| the damages. The jury WAS out about
As minutes. In their verdict they
declared Siegel to be over 81 and
assessed ths damages against
him at $685. Lehigh had claimed
1888 being the damages from the loss
] Of business and the repair OF the
car.