Case ID: johns_12/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edwards and Wife against Elbert.
    ■riic assist-a ¡It justice's court of the city of IVcw< York has of se«onsotif™ ?r05e~
    
    IN 'ERROR, oñ,certiorari to .a''justice’s court of the-city of ' • _• , ! ‘ ' ' J ■" " Jy.ezo ■ X OVKi ..
    . Sally Elbert sued the" plaintiffs in error,
    before, one of the assistant justices, in arid for the ,city of. JV*em- York, and declared* for that the wife of Edwards maliciously preferred a charge, against her"before the special justices of New-Yorlc, for having;, assaulted, and beaten hey whereby she was compelled to procuré" bail for; her appearance,. and. thereby was put to-expense in defending herself against the charge.
    .' "There was. a jury , trial, and." a. verdict for the. plaintiff below for- 16 dollars, and 75 cents, and judgment therefor, "and-7 dollors and 93 cents costs. ■' "
    , 'It, <was objected, among; other.things, at the,trial, and the' same objection was raised for the consideration of this court/ that the justice had ho jurisdiction of the cause. ' , ' -
   Per Curiam.

The case of Main v. Prosser (1 Johns. Cas. 130.) decides this question. It was there, held, that justices of the peace had no jurisdiction of actions for malicious prp'secur tians. The grounds of that opinion: appear to be twofold: 1st» That the nature of the action involved delicate and important questions affecting the administration of public justice, and frequently relating to proceedings in other courts, and might incidentally produce a review of the conduct of superior tribunals. 2d. That the act concerning costs gave costs, whenever the. plaintiff recovered in an action for malicious prosecution, however small the recovery; from which circumstance it was inferred, that the legislature had this exception in view. In the twenty-jive dollar act, which was in force when this decision was made, the expressions weye as broad as they arc in the act giving the justices’ courts, in the city of New-York, jurisdiction of causes. Both acts gave them jurisdiction of all actions of trespass on the case ; and the general statute relative to costs, gives costs now, in actions for malicious prosecutions, wherever there is a recovery of damages, in any court of common pleas, or mayor’s court, though the sum recovered be under 25 dollars.

The act conferring jurisdiction on the assistant justices in the city of New-York, being posterior to this decision, it is a fair inference, that, in specifying actions of trespass on the case, the legislature did not intend to embrace actions for malicious prosecutions ; for these expressions had received a judicial construction, excluding the action for a malicious prosecution ; and, therefore, it was not necessary to except that action from the cognizance of the assistant justices, because it had been excepted by construction. In many other instances, this court have implied exceptions in the general grant of power to justices. (1 Caines’ Rep. 191. 594.; 3 Caines’ Rep. 129.; and 1 Johns. Cas. 228.)

Judgment reversed.