
    Margaret Agnew, an Infant, etc., Resp’t, v. The Brooklyn City R. R. Co., App’lt.
    
      (City Court of Brooklyn,
    
    
      General Term,
    
    
      Filed April 23, 1889.)
    
    1. Negligence—Street railroads—Liability for injury
    Plaintiff, a child of about six years of age, while attempting to cross a public street, was struck down and injured by a horse attached to one of defendant’s cars. The car had no conductor, and the testimony tended to show that the driver, at the time, was directing his attention to the rear of the car. Held, that a verdict for plaintiff was proper.
    2. Evidence—Competency of witness.
    
      Held, that it was not error to permit a witness to testify, who knows at that time that she will he punished if she tells an untruth.
    
      Ojiarles J. Patterson, for resp’t: Morris <& Pearsall, for . app’lt.
   Clement, Ch. J.

The plaintiff, on September 3, 1886, was about six and a half years of age, and on that day, while attempting to cross Sackett street, in this city, was struck by a horse attached to a horse car on one of the defendant’s lines, and was thrown down and severely injured. It was conceded, on the trial, that the car had no conductor, and there was testimony tending to show that the driver was, at the time, directing his attention to the rear of the car, and was not on the look-out for foot travelers crossing the street. Such testimony was contradicted by the witnesses for the defense, and the jury, after seeing and hearing all the witnesses, decided to give credit to the statements made on the part of the plaintiff, and rendered a verdict in her favor for $3,500. We have carefully examined the record, and hold that the verdict is not against the weight of evidence.

We also think that it was not error to permit the plaintiff to testify, as she knew, at. the time she gave her testimony, that she" would be punished if she told an untruth, and was competent as a witness on the authority of Jones v. Brooklyn, Bath and West End R. R. Co., recently decided by the general term of this court.

We have examined the other exceptions in the case, and do not find error either in the rulings of the trial judge or in his charge.

The judgment and order denying new trial must be affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyck, J., concurs.  