New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-08-14
LAW COURTS.

NARIsE CouKr-Before Judge Lynch.-A"aih
By Water from Crot0H Pipe John OBrieB vs.
OreR heaHtdy -Piaintf keeps an apple and
fruit stand near the Ba1ery-deisndGnt is an en-.
ployee AZ the Battery Hotel The complain, Is
"or injury 10 the person Of plaintiff, and bis pro-
perry, by squirting dirty water upon him and an.
Ioying plhinnH on three occasions vistfn three
weeks BY same proceeding, while carrying on his
lawful business, damages laiist 800 Mr. Bridges
appeared for defense, and commended tina; the &C
ton being for astsut and battery, b. means Of
water being thrown upon plaintiff. this Co1-t has
10 jurisdiction Of the case 10 Jurisdiction a. - As
ssut and battery being confined to cases OF asssG'
stsea- NJ Nash, FOR plaintiff. on the other hand
commended that the acton being in fac. Tor inlry 10
property, this Court andeF toe c)de mas cogozAnce
Of L. Tie Judge ruled in favor Of after vie =. IL
was stated thar Mr. Kennedy, while being engaged
at times IN watering the sTeet il front Of the no
tel BY means Of a small hose such as usually EN-
plOyed, extended bis attention occasionally % the
vicinity Of plaintiff stand. directing the hose y
the gutter Immediately beside it, and causing the
nucoy water 70 spat.er over the clothes and e.
fects Of plaintiff and doing so discriminating tee
remonstrances u plaintiff. Tue Court considered
that persons using the Crot0n water ia cleaning the
streets should be held acc )lnsabe Tor neglect or
wiliul Injury TO persons clothes or property, aod
gave Judgment in favor Of plaintiff for $50 and
coats.
COURT OF CoNNoS PLEAs-Ia Ctla5srs-8e-
fore Judge Daly-Hdbe1s Cerpns.-A writ was
issued on behalf Of James p Carter, directed 10
Louisa Carter, same name, but no relation. We
believe, OF petitioner, requiring her 70 produce the
person Of Robert J. Carter, & little boy years o,
age, whom iii syerred she unjustly Detained, and
the petitioner, father Of said child has righ! 70
i.s care ard custody.
To this, return was made that the child WAS
placed by this Court ia custody OF sail LOuisa In
May last-thst its mother. Maria Carter, nss en-.
tered an action against petitioner, In the Supreme
Couri for divorce, on the ground Of inhdety--that
is mother ia s.ewsrdess Of the steamship Crescent
City, now on its way from Chagres Ms CO IA
Their also belongs 10 the Crescent City, and that
said Louisa WAS requested by said Maria, previous
10 leaving the port 70 preserve the charge Of said
Robt J. &C.
Itsppesrs that the child some time since was
placed in the custody Of Mrs Caroline Carter, 96
Goerck 81, and her daughter Louisa [. young lady
about Ia years Of age the respondent in this case
In May last Mr.. Carter issued a writ OF HIbeds
CorDus to obtain possession Of the child, but ldge
Day decided that the child being taken good care
OF It should remain where ii was the father being
at liberty TO call and see it. Mrs Caroline Carter,
recently has died, AMI the present application Is
based On that fact and also on the averment that
the child is without father or mother near It, and
the situation Of Miss { uter she being aosentirom
home daily pursuing the ooclpitlon at which sne IS
engaged and from which she obtains her llvehnoodl
rot being such as TO enable her 10 give that atten-
ton TO the child which it requires. IL was shewn
that the child is still taken good care OF, bat as
nothing was presented initiating against the ca
pacity or the ability Of the father as 10 It's manten'
srce, and the mother being away, the Judge de-
cded in favor Of giving up the Guild TO us iather,
and an order was made 10 that effect. Mr. Dyo!s
for petitioner Mr.. Stevens opposed.