Case Name: EUREKA STABLE CO. v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-05-01
Citations: 64 N.Y.S. 383
Docket Number: 
Parties: EUREKA STABLE CO. v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 64
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
EUREKA STABLE CO. v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(City Court of New York,
General Term.
May 1, 1900.)
Damages—Evidence.
In an action against a street-railway .company to recover f of injuries to-a carriage, caused by collision with a car of defendant, "a carriage maker and repairer of 15 years’ standing, who made the repairs on the carriage, testified to almost daily visits to plaintiff’s stable, and f generally to the condition of plaintiff’s carriages, and stated the value óf the repairs at §158.70, and the difference in the value of the carriage before the accident and after the repairs to be about §300. The court instructed the jury that the witness was qualified as an expert, but that his knowledge of the vehicle in question seemed very slight, and that they should consider that fact. Held, that the instruction was fair as to defendant.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by the Eureka Stable Company against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and CONLAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.
Holm & Smith, for respondent.

Opinion:
CONLAN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action is to recover damages for an alleged injury to a carriage belonging to the plaintiff by being in collision with a car of the defendant at Lexington avenue and Sixtieth street, New York City, on the night of the 7th of- December, 1897; and such collision it is charged was the fault or negligence of' the defendant's employés. The only question submitted for review on this appeal is whether or not the court erred in permitting the jury to consider the depreciation of the value of the wagon. The court, in its charge to the jury, upon this precise question said:
"The evidence introduced here as to depreciation in value o£ the carriage is rather meager, and I shall not allude to it except to say that the witness who testified concerning the value has duly qualified himself as an expert. His knowledge, however, of the vehicle in question, seems to be very slight, and you will consider that in a settlement upon the verdict."
The witness in question had testified to almost daily visits to the plaintiff's place of business, and generally to the condition of the plaintiff's carriages. He was a carriage maker and repairer of 15 years' standing; also did the repairs on the carriage in question; and was, therefore, competent to testify as to the value of the repairs, which he stated were worth $158.70, and, under objection, he was permitted to say that the difference in value before the accident and after the repairs was ¿bout $300. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $208, and it does not, therefore, appear that the charge of the court had been prejudicial to the defendant. Indeed, it would seem that the charge was entirely fair to the defendant; and, having reached this conclusion, we see no reason for disturbing the finding's of the jury. It may be said that the defendant gave no evidence whatever as to the value, and ought not, for that reason, to be heard in complaint. There was a conflict of evidence upon the question of negligence, and the jury determined that also in the plaintiff's favor.
The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed. All concur.