Superior Court.
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2004, "word_count": 348, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9703999757766724], "ccnet_perplexity": [1322.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Before Chief Justice Jones


DEC. 9-Wtlhs VS.. Bsil.-This Ease, having occupied
the attention Of the Court since Wednesday last,
conded to the jury at O'Clock to-day, aft very
tce of the varied and conflicting testimony submitted
either side. The jury retired; and, upon their
turn recorded their verdict in favor of the plaintiff for
So 76s 75 and cents The Court journed to 10
O'clock A. NJ. tomorrow.


Before Judge Oakley.


DEC. 9-Wm. u. Willis VS.. Harlem Rail Road CO.
This SUIT is brought for the recovery of damages
Ing thrown from the Victory" in September, Is44
belonging to the H. r. r. Co. A verdict of $1,000
was obtained by the plaintiff at the April term which
aside by Chief Justice Jones' upon the ground
of material witness lin behalf of the deence) being
absent new trial was however, roered. and it now
up in due form. For the plaintiff it is contended
that this had been coniemned-not being road wor.
thythst the prosecutor in this suit had received
rious injury and that he entitled to satisfactory
damages or cur able neglect the part Of the engi
neer brakesman, conductor, and for which the Com
paDy responsible The full particulars duly
reported in the Herald at former trial and is there
fore thought needless to so into further detail.


In connection with this case, may be permitted the
relation OF incident which occurred in the early stage
of this trial


witness called, who declined testifyng or
affirming, account OF his scienous scruples He
proved to he believer in the exploded doc
trine Of Mlleism and about to be mittcd for
contempt of Court for refusing to qualify himself
witness in this suit when at the inst OF of the
ia y who represen ed that he honest man. sim
cere though possibly deluded in his declarations and
obstinscy to testify before human tribunal he
spared tho infections OF the Court and he very
important witness, his statement was admitted to be
somceht giving it the credit might be thought enti
hed 10 corroboEated by more substantial testimony