they did not commence to hoist, and did not hoist until the wheel mentioned in said complaint was rolled into the building, and the men employed thereon were out of the way, and had all full and proper notice to keep away till the hoisting of defendants' timber was finished, which they fully understood, and for a time acted on. These defendants deny that the timbers or plank were negligently or carelessly slung, or prepared for hoisting, or carelessly or negligently handled or hoisted by these defendants; or that, through their negligence, inattention or want of proper care and management, the plank or timber slipped from the sling or hoisting apparatus or tackle. These defendants admit that the plaintiff was injured; but to what expenses he has been put, or what injuries he has been exposed or has suffered, except that they believe his leg was severely injured, they have not knowledge nor information sufficient to form a belief. These defendants deny the whole of said complaint, so far as the same is in any respect inconsistent with the statements of their answer. HENRY E. DAVIES, Defendants' Attorney. ! (No. 32.) By railroad company, in an action for putting passenger out of the car; general denial, with justification that plaintiff refused to pay his fare.1 SUPREME COURT. Thomas V. G. Folant agt. The Hudson River Railroad Company. The defendants, in answer to the complaint in this action, admit, that they are a corporation and common carriers, as therein alleged, and they deny each and every other allegation therein contained. They further say, that the plaintiff, at the day in the complaint mentioned, was on a certain train of cars belonging to the defendant, while on its way from New-York to Albany, and did then and there refuse to pay his fare to the conductor of said train, upon his reasonable request; whereupon the said conductor and the servants of defendants, as they lawfully might, did put the said plaintiff out of the cars, using no unnecessary force, at a usual stopping place, and near a dwelling-house, on stopping the train. THOMAS M. NORTH, Defendants' Attorney. 1 The answer in this case is to a complaint similar to No. 75, Part III., ante, p. 498. A passage ticket, though limited by the words "good for this trip only," if not previously used, entitles the holder to a passage on a subsequent day as well as the day it bears date. (Pier v. Finch, 24 Barb., 514.) But a passenger is bound to conform to a regulation of (No. 33.) By railroad company, in an action for injury to the person; specific denials of negligence, with the further defence that injury was caused by the party's own negligence. SUPREME COURT. Peter Pitcher agt. The Hudson River Railroad Company. The defendants, in answer to the complaint of the plaintiff in this action, deny: That at the time and place in the said complaint mentioned, they did not nor would use due and proper care, skill and diligence, in and about the conveying and carrying of Catharine Emily Pitcher, in the said complaint mentioned, or that they wholly neglected or refused so to do, or that they so carelessly, improperly, negligently or unskillfully conducted themselves, their locomotive engine, cars and railway, that by or through their mere carelessness, negligence, unskillfulness or misconduct, the said Catharine Emily Pitcher was thrown from the said cars, upon the said railroad, or under the wheels of the said cars; or that they carelessly or negligently ran a locomotive engine and train of cars attached thereto, against or over the body of the said Catharine Emily Pitcher; or that the said Catharine Emily Pitcher or the plaintiff have, at any time, sustained any injuries, losses or damages whatever, the company, requiring him to exhibit his ticket when requested; and if he refuse to do so, forfeits his right to be carried further, and may be ejected from the cars. (Hibbard v. The New-York and Erie Railroad Company, 1 Smith, 15 N. Y. Rep., 455.) by reason of any careless, improper, negligent or unskillful conduct on the part of the defendants, their agents or servants. They have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the extent, duration, consequences, amount or value of the injuries, losses, damages, or expenses received, suffered, sustained, paid or incurred by the said Catharine Emily Pitcher or the said plaintiff, nor as to the relationship between them. That whatever injuries, losses, damages or expenses were received, suffered, sustained, paid or incurred, by Catharine Emily Pitcher or the plaintiff, were in consequence, solely, of the negligence and carelessness of the said Catharine Emily Pitcher, without any fault on the part of the defendants. THOMAS M. NORTH, Defendants' Attorney. (No. 34.) Amended answer on behalf of a railroad company, justifying an alleged trespass to lands, under title to same, acquired by statutory proceedings.1 SUPREME COURT-RENSSELAER COUNTY. Glen Van Rensselaer agt. The Hudson River Railroad Company. The amended answer of The Hudson River Railroad Company to the complaint of Glen Van Rensselaer : 1 To Complaint No. 68, Part III., ante, p. 488. First. The defendants are a body corporate, duly created under and in pursuance of the following acts of the legislature of State of New-York, namely, the act passed May 12th, 1846, entitled "An act to authorize the construction of a railroad from New-York to Albany;" the act passed March 20th, 1847, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled An act to authorize the construction of a railroad from New-York to Albany, passed May 12th, 1846;" the act passed February 10th, 1848, entitled "An act further to amend the act to authorize the construction of a railroad from New-York to Albany, passed May 12th, 1846;" and the act passed February 5th, 1850, entitled "An act further to amend an act to authorize the construction of a railroad from New-York to Albany, passed May 12th, 1846." Second. And the defendants are informed and believe that that certain piece of land, lying in the town of Greenbush, in the county of Rensselaer, distinguished on a certain map annexed to the petition hereinafter mentioned by the number 82 (eighty-two), was required to be taken for the construction and maintenance of the defendants' railroad, in said acts mentioned, and the convenient accommodations appertaining to the same, and thereupon the defendants, on the first Monday of August, 1850, presented a petition to the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork, signed by John Thompson, their attorney, setting forth the facts in this second article alleged describing with convenient certainty, by a map annexed to said petition, said piece of land so required to be taken, setting forth the name and residence of the plaintiff as the owner thereof, and only person interested therein, except James De Forest and Obadiah E. Lansing, executors, &c., of James Woods, deceased, as mortgagees, who were made parties, and praying the appointment of Commissioners to ascertain |