This tag was created by Anonymous.
In the Municipal court on October 16 (1)
The trial of the second damages claim appeared to have attracted fewer newspaper stories than the first trial. Only the New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York American, Times Union, and New York Age published an account of the trial, with the latter three stories not reporting any testimony. All the stories mentioned the $804 award to Rosenberg. The insurance appraisal appeared only in the New York Herald Tribune and Home News.
Royal Insurance, with whom Rosenberg had a policy, was also mentioned as a party to the case by the New York Herald Tribune, Home News, and Times Union. The three stories described Royal Insurance as co-defendant with the city, but the basis for the liability of the two parties as at odds: if the disorder was a riot, the city was liable under the General Municipal law, but the insurance company was not, as its policies excluded riots. When lawyers for Royal Insurance argued that a riot had caused the damage, Arnold "denied that there had been riots in the legal meaning of the term," according to the New York Herald Tribune and Home News, and asserted that it was a coincidence that the fire in the store occurred on the date of the disorder. Those stories described Arnold responding to the arguments of the insurance company by asking for a mistrial, and later filing a motion to have the verdict set aside. Neither story specified the grounds for the motion; the Times Union reported the argument that the fire's timing was a coincidence as the grounds. Whatever its basis, Rosalsky denied the motion.
Evidence in the form of testimony from two witnesses was described by the New York Herald Tribune and Home News. Anna Rosenberg provided details of the damage done to her store during the disorder, but not how it had occurred as she had not been present at the time. Evidence of the circumstances of the damage came from the testimony of Herbert Cantor, who owned a pharmacy five doors from Rosenberg's notion store. He had not seen the fire started, but described crowds throwing objects through windows and carrying merchandise he assumed was stolen.
The number of claims still pending in court was mentioned in the New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York Age, and New York American The first three stories reported 160 cases pending in the Municipal Court alone (claims for large sums were tried in the Supreme Court), with only the New York Herald Tribune attributing that number to Arnold, the corporation counsel lawyer, together with his description of those cases as "mostly for small sums." That total is larger than the 106 cases reported in July. There was no explanation for the discrepancy. By contrast, the New York American reported 104 other claims pending, which fits the number from July. The story gave no source for that information, which may have derived from the earlier information rather than Arnold.
This page has tags:
Contents of this tag:
This page references:
- "City Loses 2d Suit in Riot Damage," Times Union, October 16, 1935 [clipping].
- "2d Damage Suit Lost by City in Harlem Rioting," New York Herald Tribune, October 16, 1935 [clipping].
- "City Again Held Liable for Harlem Rioting as Woman Wins $804 for Store Burning," Home News, October 16, 1935 [clipping].
- "$804 Riot Suit Lost by City," New York American, October 16, 1935 [clipping].
- "Hiring Negroes at Kress Store; Second Local Merchant Wins Suit For Riot Damages," New York Age, October 26, 1935, 1.