The fraudulent altel'ation of a bank.note to make it appear of more than its true value, and other similar aots' whioh are held to be forgery, are analogous. Weare therefore of opinion' that the ruling and conviction were proper in respeot to those coins whioh had been drilled and afterwards filled up. On the other hand; we do not oonsider it a oriminal aot, whatever the intent may have been, to add base metal to a good coin, and we see no gronnd for holding that a hole punohed through a eoin' with a sharp instrument, crowding the silver into a slightly different shape, but leaving it all in the coin, has any effeot to render it less valuable or less lawful tender than before. The statutes above oited are silent upon this exaot question; but we think it cleal' that a silver coin, duly issued from the mint, rema:ins .of full value so long as it ret8iins all the appearanoe of' It' coin; and' does besides contain all its original weight and fineness. This being so; we 'oannot regard the addition of something to it as a criltlinalact of oounterfeiting. Passing such acoin works no injury to the person to w110m it is passed. The pleadings and evidenoe reported do not enable us to discnminate between the counts'whioh 'apply to the one and to the other kind of alteration. We must; therefole,order new trials. Counsel will probably be able to arrange for a default upon suohoount or aomits as relate to what we hold to be counterfeited coin· . set aside.
v. MEnJBand others.
May 20, 1882.)
(Circuit 'Court, 8. D. New York.
OONSPnl.AOY-AcTION FOR DAMAGES-V1ilRDIOT.
The verdict on a 11 civil ,action for damages, will be regarded, on motion to set it aside, as ap affirml)Mve fiUl:png upon the issues Which were presented for their determillation. So; where the verdict was fora large amount against t.wo of the defendknts, and 1orblitnomi'nal damages against the third defendant, such defendant is not injured, by the finding of nominal damllges agA-iust him, and have the v,erdict set aside though it was ,inconsistent with the charge of the ,court. . , ,
TW. G. Willson, f(jt plaintiff: J()sephH. Choate,JOIt defendanll;' ' i, SHIPMAN, D. J. This is a action to recover d1iliiages fot a. conspiraoy. The jury returned a verdiot in favor of the plaintiff for
FIlmER V. MEYER.
a large sum against two of the defendants, and for $100 against the defendant R. S. Newcomb. He now moves to set aside the verdict against him upon the ground that it is an illogical and inconsistent verdict; that it shows,' and the' faet was, that the jury 'did not find that the allegations of· the complaint in regard to him were trtie,for that he committed the acts charged in the comif they had plaint they were bound, nnder the charge of the court,' to render a verdict for a very large sum. I think that I alll obliged to regard the verdict of the jury for the plaintiff as. an affirmative finding upon the )l;lBUeS which were presented for their determination. If it is permitted either to assume or to prove that the jury did not find what the v.erdict says they did ftll,d,: the result of trials by jury will. be thrown into great confusion. Starting from the position that the july meant to tind the issues Jor the plaintiff, and not merely that a certain sum >of-money should be paid to him without regard to the cause of action which was set forth in the complaint, it is true that the verdict against Mr. 'Newcomb was an inconsistent one, because, under the charge of the court,if he commitiedthe acts charged in the complaint, he 'was liable in a much larger than jur;r gave. If the Il,loved set aside the verdict as against Mr. Newcomb, a serious would have been presented, for it is manifest that the verdict was not, in its amount, in accordance with the charge. 'But if the plaintiff is satisfied with the verdict, I do not think that it should be set aside upon themetionof the defendant. He is not-injured by the fact that it was for nominal damages, when it should have been for a vety large sum if the jury found the issue against him, and it is not permitted to me to infer that the verdict was not an affirmative finding upon the issues whioh'were presented. Thb motion is denied.
and others" v.
(Circuit Oourt, W: D. Missouri, W. D. October, 1880.)
N;EGLIG;EKCE-CoNTRmUTOHY NEGLIGENCE-QUESTIONS OF FACT.
In an action for damages for personal injuries inflicted by being thrown from a buggy attached to a. runaway horse, alleged to have been frightened by new and unusual machinery being exhibited on the public street, on the question of negligence of defendants-whether the machinery was kept in the proper place, and in, tbe proper manner, and with due care or otherwise; and whether the machinery, or the smoke or steam issuing therefrom, and nothing else, caused the fright of the horse or not; and on the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plainti1f.s-whether the horse was managed with care and prudence, or otherwise; aJ;ld whether the horse was vicious, and con, \0 the or was, in the sense of being disposed to 'runaway,-are questions of fact'for the jury to determine from the evidence.
A livery man· is bound tp. keep !lafe horses, 01' fully disclose the character! of the horse dpy,er at the time of letting him, aud may be respop.sible fpr wrongful acts in, this p a r t i c u l a r . ' ..
Where a 1iu'sband sues for damages for injuries to his wife by being thrown ..from a, huggy:inwhich'he was if the injury resulted from tne wrongful aGt other,cause, plaintiffs havenot.contributed by theIr own,acts or neglect, and the aCCIdent was not caused by the character of MrS6,' the defendants are liable in damages. KREKE:t, D.J.; (clttJ/rgirtg jury.) The evideqce in this case:!lhows tbatthe firm :of.Trumbull,:ReynaldEl.& Allen were on fourth day of July,' 1879, machin,ery, place of business on the side of Walnut, between Fourth al1d Fifth (}it$; that for,: a number of years, in had.,placedamd kept sbanding on the oppo.site side of the street from their stores a number .of machines, :ilf.mollg them separators and a traction-engine; fmIrthl day of July they took out a traction-engine from Kansas City to the fair' grounds for exhibition. When the engine was taken back in the early part of the afternoon of the 4th, it was left on the opposite side of the street from their store, in a gutter or ditch designating the limit of the street; the evidence showing the place and manner'in which it was left. Huntoon and wife, (the plaintiffs,) residents of Wyandotte, Kansas, on the said fourth of Julycame with theirfamily to Kansas City; Mr. Huntoon, wife, and child riding in a buggy, and the two boys in a street car. While going up Main street they saw the traction-engine on Walnut street. After going up Main street, they crossed over to Walnut, passed up Walnut some distance, turned