New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-10-17
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT-srEcIAL TEKM-Ocr B-Before Judge
DAVIES.
Iur yUGITIVIS AGAIS-nADEH0IsELLE

| SUPREME COURT-SPEcIAL TEKM-Ocr b-Before judge
DAVIES.
1Hy Trench FUGITIVIs AGAIS-nADEH0IsELLE
DEBUD EAsnPT FROM ARREST.
pener, Fcicite Dubud and others.
The complaint in this states that the plaintiffs
were the Of certain railway shares with
cfcrs Of The plaintiff company and had charge Of the
being the property the psini, that ssd ss{ps9ef AID
sscted The ad shares coupons and converted the
into money and have escaped this country with said money
u se a al and the Fere Dub1d
the order Of arrest 10 hT the ground that
the fact. stated plant do suhoe the OF
female Gsbrath and John Townsend ioE defendAn Jas
DAVIES Sub sol sec 10 Of Code declares that
female shall be arrested in any action except for "iu
injury TO person, character or property"
follows that where female has committed wllfu injury
10 property she may be arrested.
Ii was contended in the argument that the shares and ocu
pons mentioned in the complaint were not property ana there
ioIe the could not be sustained.
think the aveneps IN the complaint are sufficient 10 Sustain
the position that these shares and coupons property and
the perry Of the plaintiffs aud that the same were converted
with the n'tnto deprive the plaintiffs Of the benefit OF the
1he next question and the grave s What Ia wiful
that this only wiiGl deaes of wilnl d-precs
position not injury. Bowler In his Dictionary vol p
6s6 uIs to personal property the Tn.~i aSn.
Injury" in general wrong or ds7lsgc done TO
mS 5 @ b .9 ese " ne nd herein was aiding and
taking from the and converting into
and fleeing country herewith the property Of the plaintiffs
and consequently OBTAINING the same from the owners
III This isssIsore i an injury to personal PTSPery !. VIII
set purpose" snd Bousi.- hit. ntionsiiy"
Applying these definitions TO the facts stated in the complaint
b. for doubt that the comp, ed of
injuries the personal property Of these Plaintiffs and
that the done wilfuIy Intentionally.
The defendant Feicite Dubud has therefore the facts
stated committed wiu injury the property plain
tifs and is liable o be arrested therefor.
IT. counsel fo the defendant pressed the Argument
qnie controlling hs motion. the decision by Judge
Code Rep 81 In that the defendant hHd been arrested
that shc had concealed removed disposed
Of psno beoD cling plaintiff Tie Judge that the
defendant cannot be arrested except for wu injury TO prop
erty and that il is difficult understand bow detention
concalment Of piece of furniture wlfa Injury t. it.
But he Had tie defendant broken u pieces dam
sgtd intention ally that It's value thereby sened
destroyed that would be wiul injury within the meaning
Z" Of the sct.'
II this direct authority for sustaining the
order Of arrest in this
There the stock and coupons have been destroyed such
They have been converted into money and that beyond all
question IN injury the plaintiffs property.
That has been converted 10 the deiendans
retained and concealed the property of the plaintiffs
which would be ga conversion and for such Judge Mason
thought female be- arrested. But understand his
op sustain order of upon fss Ike those dis
closed in this
Having doubt in my mind on the subject must deny
the motion made the Of behalf OF the
defendant, felicite Dubud.