Legal doings in 1893

[Harry]

If you like to browse court cases, this is a marvelous web page taken from the Brooklyn Daily Standard Union (I assume a NYC newspaper) summarizing court cases for the first 3-4 months of 1893. I ran across it by looking for information on the 1891 murder of Helen Potts which was also a sensation in its time. The web page has no references to the Borden case however.

http://www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/Cou ... Court.html

I loved this verdict:

"A VERDICT FOR SIX CENTS
In the suit of John MAYCOCK, to recover $5,000. damages from the Bridge
Trustees, for injuries sustained by falling between a car and platform, the
jury returned a verdict this morning, giving the plaintiff six cents damages.
The case was tried before Judge BROWN. In the Supreme Court."

If this case had been heard today, Mr. Maycock, would have ended up owning the railroad.

From another web site of legal books mentioning the Helen Potts murder:

[Carlyle W.] Harris [1868-1891] was a medical student accused of poisoning his young wife, Helen Potts, with morphine. Their marriage had not been disclosed, and after her death her mother claimed that Potts had pressured Harris to announce their marriage, which he had agreed to do the week she died. This news led to the exhumation of her body and a trial, which took place in New York in 1892. This transcript of the trial, one of only 50 that were printed, demonstrates the prosecution’s argument that Harris was a gambler and womanizer, and the defense argument that autopsy results were inconclusive. Harris was found guilty and executed in the electric chair at Sing Sing in May, 1893.
Harris’ mother, Hope Ledyard, an author and lecturer, proclaimed his innocence in a book about this famous trial, The Judicial Murder of Carlyle Harris. "

[diana]

Thanks for passing that on, Harry!

The site is a fascinating read. Certain items made me laugh -- others are just plain odd -- while some are flat out tragic....

A real 'slice of life'.

[doug65oh]

These are great, Harry!! Particularly the one about the Brooklyn bank swindle. It appears the foiler - Hutchinson - was a devotee of the 'Barney Fife School of Crime Prevention.' (He did after all, nip the enterprise in the bud.)

[Doug]

I imagine six cents went a lot farther in 1893 than it does today.

[Harry]

There certainly is a variety of crimes. I'm used to seeing those peaceful postcards and this just wakes one up to the reality that those times were not much different than today.

There was another entry for a settlement of six cents. Actually 12 cents, 6 for the man and 6 for his horse. Maybe six cents was a minimum figure you could award.

"Six Cents For Each Man And Horse -
James O'NEILL, the owner of the trotting horse To?n, sued the
Brooklyn Heights Cable Road Company for $600 damages for injuries to his horse. His brother Edward was riding the horse on Montague street when a car struck the horse, knocking him down and dislocating his hip.
Edward O'NEILL was thrown to the pavement and also injured and he sued
the company for $6,000 damages for his injuries. The jury brought in a sealed verdict this morning and they found for the plaintiffs in the sum of six cents for the horse and six cents for the man."

[FairhavenGuy]

It seems with the six cents cases that the jury wants to settle in favor of the plaintiff, but they don't want to make the "guilty" party cough up for personal injury claims. "Yes, you were injured and the defendant seems to be somewhat at fault, but they don't have to pay you doctor's bills." Actually the $5,000 and $6,000 seems to be quite a bit to ask given the times.

That's just my six cents worth. . .

[theebmonique]

Chris...you are just too cool ! Amen to that !

Tracy

[Harry]

Good one Chris

Thanks goodness you copyrighted it. My legal team of the firm Robinson, Jennings and Adams strike quickly when it is left off.