Case Name: O'NEILL et al. v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., (two cases.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-07-28
Citations: 24 N.Y.S. 638
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’NEILL et al. v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., (two cases.)
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 24
Pages: 638–640

Head Matter:
(71 Hun, 114.)
O’NEILL et al. v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., (two cases.)
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
July 28, 1893.)
Damages—Injuries to Horse—Evidence.
In an action against a railroad company for injuries to a horse, the-evidence of plaintiff and his brother, on which the extent of the injury almost entirely depended, if credited, called for substantial damages; but it appeared that, within a few days after the injury, plaintiff applied to a veterinarian to pronounce the horse sound, and the physician did not discover injuries to the extent claimed by plaintiff. Held, that a verdict for nominal damages should not be disturbed. Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
Two actions, one by James O’Mell against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company to recover damages for injuries to a horse caused by defendant’s negligence, and another by Edward O’Mell against the same defendant for personal injuries caused by defendant’s-negligence, both the result of the same accident, and tried together. From a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff for nominal damages only, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes, plaintiff in each case appeals-
Affirmed.
Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN, J.
James P. Niemann, for appellants.
Henry D. Hotchkiss, for respondent.

Opinion:
BARNARD, P. J.
The extent of the injury to the horse alleged' to have been caused by the accident depended very much, if not entirely, on the testimony of the' plaintiff and his brother Edward, who was riding the horse when he was injured. It is true that these witnesses, if credited, would call for a substantial verdict, but the case shows that the plaintiff applied to a veterinary physician to pronounce the horse sound within a few days after the accident. The plaintiff says that he was requested to have this examination made by the physician at the request of one NcCoy, who knew of the injury the horse sustained, and wanted to buy him. The doctor did not discover the extent of the injury as claimed by the plaintiff. He said the horse was lame, but he discovered no dislocated hip. The jury had abundant reason for placing the injury at a nominal sum in case they discredited these two witnesses. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.