
    PATRICK G. MURRAY vs. THE WASHINGTON AND GEORGETOWN RAILROAD COMPANY.
    Where on the trial of an action for a personal injury there is conflicting testimony as to whether the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident, and the jury find in his favor, the court will not, grant a new trial.
    STATEMENT OR THE CASE.
    This was an action to recover damages from the defendant for injuries resulting to the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant.
    The facts are these: The defendant has a railway-track on Seventh street, in the city of Washington,» and the grade of that street had been lowered by the authority of the District of Columbia. On the 23d day of June, 1873, the railroad track and cross-ties of the defendant, on said Seventh street, near the junction on F street, were resting upon supports at an elevation of four or five feet above the surface to which said street had been graded. It was necessary to lower correspondingly the water-main running down Seventh street; and on the morning of the day in question a number of laborers were employed by the water-registrar of the District of Columbia in digging a trench for the purpose of lowering said water-main, which passes directly under the railroad-track. The plaintiff was one of the laborers so employed by the water-registrar, and was standing by the side of the trench, and under said track, shoveling dirt away as the other men threw it up to him, and was so engaged when the railroad-track fell down and struck the plaintiff, from which resulted the injuries complained of. The testimony was conflicting as to whether the plaintiff knew the railroad-track was in a dangerous condition, and also whether his own negligence contributed to the accident. These questions were left, upon the evidence, to the determination of the jury, who returned a verdict for the sum of one thousand dollars in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant moved the court to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, because the damages are eseessive, the verdict contrary to the evidence and law, &c. The chief-justice, who tried the case, denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. But the court in general term were of opinion that, inasmuch as the question of contributory negligence was fairly submitted to the jury upon conflicting testimony, their verdict was conclusive, and affirmed the decision of the court below.
    
      Crittenden & Elliot for plaintiff.
    
      Enoch Totten for defendant.
    Mr. Justice MacArthur did not sit in the above case.
     