The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-05-24
Circuit Court.


MAY 90 Geo Baker rs. Daniei Slerin.-This was an
sction damages for and battery com.
mitted by defendant on plaintiff. The facts, set
orh by the plaintiff follows: On the 7th of De-
ctniber 1Sl7, between the hours Of and o'clock in
he afternoon the plaintiff passing up Green st
in this city, he heard females ming loudly
If ill usage from man, stepping up what
the matter the females Implanted that person
nance Daniel Slevin meaning the defendant had for
chilly broken into their houe and turned them out Of
II. The plaintiff thereupon spoke to defendant in q
friendly manner and advised him dssist from using
violence against the females; the defendant then
menccd abusing plaintiff violently. and attacked him
with some sharp instrument. which lie the plaintiff
could not account Of the darkness Of the night,
and inflicted wound upon plaintiffs face, immedi-
stcly under his eye, about two inches long and peue.
trating to the bone; ut the time Of the assault Alder
man n, dye came up. and the plaintiff and the Alder
arrested Slevin brought him - the station house.
and IN the ming he held To bail in 81 $780, one
Of the females examined the part Of the plain
tiff and that the instrument with which the de-
fendnnt struck the plaintiff or hatshet 1t
also stated in affidavit made by plaintiff,
that ut the time Of the arrest he (the de-
fendant) made Of the most violent lam
euage to himself and the Alderman. The de-
fence set up was in Substance as follows:-it
app, AIRED that Seyin owns premsts in Green street,
aud lst two apartments to two females. the
named White aud the other kiely In some time
for that did not appear he wished to
get them out Of the premises and for that purpose
went there at the time above stated. He pushed in
tho door and finding person in the apartment, he
preceded u remove the furniture into the yard In
ID, meantime, the females returned aud huding their
furniture removed they became very violent, nsd col
lected Il crowd round The premises. The plaintiff, -
before stated came up NJ the time and defendants
witness alleged, commenced abusing the defendant,
whom he stated, WAS standing peaceaby the stoop,
and then preceded TO arrest HIM. Defendant asked
plaintiff If he was policeman. He replied he WAS.
lie thep asked him to show his star He replied 1t
NO matter; that he was officer Some angry words
then passed, and the plaintiff proceeded To lay his
hands deft ndunt To arrest MIN tie resisted, and
struck the plaintiff under the eye with his fist. At
this time the Alderman arrested both parties,
and brought them to the station house His Honor
charged the jury that it but that
the blow was given; but whether 1t was given with an
instrument or with the inst did not distinctly ap-
pear One witness ewears thai 1t given with tue
hatcbet while another swesrs distinctly that it
given with the fit, and that he (the witness) had
before the blow struck took the hatche out Of the
defendant han and passed il out through the gate
The hrst question you Will have to consider is, was
that blow justified no IL is here necessary state
that the points Of controversy between the defendant
and the females not involved in this suit aud
are only to look to them to how far the plaintiff
justified in arresting the defendant. The next
question you will have to consider, the offence
committed by defendant the females OF you should
think II amounted to assaut in his (the paintis)
presence such authorise him make the arrest liz
II did not. (although the plaintiffs conduct woull
amount to an assault ON the femacs) hs not JUST
Ted in making the arrest because the law would not
allow that he should receive information from others
and il he attempted to make the from the nfr
nation Of others he would be - trcspasser and the
defendant would be justified in resisting him that
If Bah there after the assault the females
had been comp leted he had no hight TO interfere and
the defendant justified IN resisting provided that,
in making such remittance he used more force than
was actually necessary. II you believe that he struck
unnecessary but IT, Of the witnesses testihed,
he struck him with u hatchet-thst being under any
circumstances. "a dangerous we@pon-i thihK ~ woud
be using more force necessary, or than the
circuIps stances of the case caiicdfor 49,
The Jury retired and soon alter returned with ver-
diet for plaintiff six cents damages aud six cents
costs
NAV 23-.qbroh,m IiouLsnd ps Timothy Peek.-Thi5
u.s nm action In the nature of replevin, under the
new code The plaintiff, carpenter by trade. was en-
ployed by young man by the name VI Johnson to ut
up the premises No. i9l Avenue b as drug store, at
an expense Of about $40 After the work finished
johnson snabc to carry out his engagements with
the Landlords the latter took possession VI the premises
fixtures and ALL and let them to another tenant who
refused to recognise the plaintiff claim MIR How
land therupon Issued wit Of rcplevn, and removed
the fixtures After the opened IL turned 6,.
that material witness was absent and apon consent
a juror was Withdrawn,
De Copan IS. Waidron.-This was an action for rent
Of premises In st Marks Place The defence set nm vas
that plaintiff bound himself to keep the premises Ia rs-
judgment for plaintiff for y4l4 One or two inouests
we're then taken, and the Court adjourned.