Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1839-09-06

suit, and remember his having been appoi.tsd Sum
day Officer about the year 1857. In consequencs Of
complaints made to me In my official capacity a.
Mayor Of the City, ! had Conversation with the
The plaintiffs counsel objected to this testimony.
and said that it could not affect Barnett for he had
right to sell the paper in the street. without the in
reference Of the officer.
The Court thought it would go in mitigation Of
damages.
Witness. II was the practice Of the Mayors Of
fce to instruct the Sunday Officers generally to pre-
vent breaches OF the peace. Mr.. Smith, when he
was spoken to on the subject, said he entirely dsap
proved of the noise made by the boys in selling
their papers; and wished it to be suppressed:
GTard-Were you in the habit, Mr.. Clark, Of
gong to Church ABOUT the time this affair hap
pened?
Witness.-some times was, but cannot recol-
lect that particular day.
with AID Benson on this subject, and believe that
ne was not opposed to the sale of papers in quiet
Christopher J. Matsell. / am clerk in the
Comptrollers office. The defendant is a Sunday
officer and regularly drew his salary from the depart
ment.
| Josiah Burton, Examined. / am Sunday officer,
and saw the defendant about January last, on duty
| in Broadway.
| Here the defendant re- ted his case.
Florence Nahoney, called by Plaintiff. On the
Tabernacle when saw Barnett taken to the Police,
and thinking it to be high handed affair, follow
ed with the intention of becoming Barnett bail. As
they went along the latter told Parker that he should
hold him amenable to the law. When they got to
the Police Office Barnett sent for his Attorney but
the Justice refused to receive the complaint Barnett
then demanded the officers and the latter hesi
tated but finally ave his to Barnett. The Officer
wanted to argue the matter with me, but told him
that II interference with the rights of free
citizen, and that he ought to be made suffer This
| took place in Centre street / do not believe that
the bell had stopped toRg at the time Of the occur
| renee.
| Cross Examined. do not know what happened
previous to the officer taking Barnett off, did not
| see the previous dispute
| The counsel on botA sides, here closed the case,
and it was ably and learendly argued to the Court
and Jury, for upwards Of five hours.
His Honour charged, that the plaintiff clearly
offending within the act in selling newspapers which
| came under the denomination Of goods, wares and
merchandise, of Sunday. On this point he would
call the attention Of the Jury to the first VOL, page
676 article 8, Of the Revised Statutes, which con-
tains the following provision
mo person shall expose sale wares merchandise,
fruit herbs goods chatie sunday except meats milk
articles exposed for sale shall be forfeited OF the
aud be seized by virtue Of for that purpose
of the city hereby authorised to issue upon conviction Of
tce being Even aad the shall be pail
| Of the poor of the town city"
The jury would BY this section that the officer
had not complied with the statute, and consequently
that verdict must pass against him. He should
nTst nave applied warrant, ana not nave taken
| the plaintiff forcibly before Police Justice on his
| own authority.
His Honor said that il the jury took this view Of
the case, and he thought they could take other,
they would find verdict for the plaintiff with such
damages as they should deem proper to meet the
justice Of the case
At the opening Of the Court on Thursday, the Jury
brought in a verdict for the defendant.
The prisoners counsel made no def Z, and the
jury found him guilty.
Patrick Gregg, William Farrall, Thomas o'Con-
ner and Daniel Keegan were tried for beating negro
named Thomas alover.
The Jury acquitted he whole Of the defendents-
and the Court adjourned.