New-York daily tribune., 1858-04-22
la W LNIlELLIGENC.E
MARINE COURT-AFkIL I5-Before Judge TEonrsos aud s
Jury.
"NLGROEs HAVE No RIGHTS THAT WHIlE sLN ARE
BOUND TO REsPICT.
l. l.. IL 4

/
"NLGROEs HAVE NO RIGHTS THAT wHIIE sES ARE
| BOUND TO REsPYCT."
Maria jenkins Ag- Thaddeus l. Lewis.
The plaintiff 4 cOloYed woman, and har-dresser
| by occupation. The defendant Is conductor In the
| employ Of the Sixth Avenue Railroad Company. On
| the 10th Of February last the plaind got upon one
| Of the cars of the company while t1e same was IN
| motion, when the defendant inforDef her that she
would not be permitted to ride IN the car as negroes
were, by the rules Of the company, expressly pro-
bibed from doing The plaintiff Listed that she
would ride, and at fortified herself against the
efforts Of the defendant to put Ter OIL by seizng hod
of the stancheOns ard refusing 70 let go. The de-
fendant told her that she had right on that car that
there was coming expressly appropriated for the
use of colored people. Finally the conductor sue
cet ded in expeng the plaintiff. 1t appeared in evil
cnce thai it was against the rules Of the c)mpany to
rmit cClored people TO ride in any except such
az were Appropriated for that purpose. Toe car 10
shich this difficulty occurred not one OF them.
These are substantially the material fac's.
Judge Thompson charged the Jury at much length,
and laid down the following rules of law:
That negroes do not possess the same nights and
myiIeees as white men remarking that the Dred
Scott csi0n not only sound law and should be
obeyed by every good citizen of the community, but
and Christianity. That the plaintiff, being negro
rad right to q seat in the in question; that it
the duty Of the conductor to expe her, under the
rules and regulate ns Of the company that the con-
psny had the right to establish such rules and regula
lions that negroes might be permitted but were not
entitled to seat in public conveyance. That the
only question for the Jury to consider Was whether
the defendant used any force than necessary
TO put the plaintiff of the That Il he did she
entitled to verdict otherwise it must be for the
defendant
The Jury retired and in short time returned with
a verdict for the defendant.
SUPERIOR COURT-APRIL 2.-Bcfore Judge sLossos. q:
THE VALUE OF A NURSES SERVICES.
Emma Landon ag Ch4res c. Marsh smiu
4. Marsh deceased
This action brought to recover moneys fer ser
e..
1t appeared that plaintiff was unrsmittng in her at
teniOns for 81 months previous to the death OF
deceased, and he had promised to pay her well,
although no specific amount was named. Defendant
was not Represented on the trial. IL was shown that
plaintiffs duties arduOus, requiring her constant
attention and frequently through the entire night
She claimed $l25 per month. The Jury found YER
dict in her favor for the full amount claimed, making
tCtsl of Sc 1876.
SPECIAL TERM.-Aph 2l-Beiore Judge PirRREroST.
DECISIONS.
The Woodruff and Beach Iron Company egt. Ii. A.
Cbittcnden ct al Case settled.
Simmcns agt. De Barre.-Older settled sipula-
tcIs TO h made before tho Judge
sUPREME COURT-SrEci.L TrhM-ArRiL 2i.-Beoie judge
MADAM REsTELL ORDERED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE Gus
TODY or Guild.
The People ex rel Frede,ics NJ Nednser agt Mary Lohmsn
commonly called MADAM Restci.
The witt of habeas corpus was Issued IN this case
requiring the def ndaut to produce before he Court tho infant
child of the ator alleged TO be unls~fay dtained or to have
The rclator an unmarried woman delivered Of male
child the sCh OF August 1885, at The house Of the defendant
who styes hersc this wit TO be midwife aud
female ply sicisn Au.ost Immediately after the delivery the
time the mother has never him the the defend
denied that she had the child in her custody under her
an, that the relato solicited procure person who
would aeop the child and t 9rco,dnsy on the day Of the
Ms Wight with Ieqqes tha, he should be sve1 to the
scon after disposed Of and siyen away for adoption;
The Court in the rt ntane the 9Th of January 1857
pct Whether The aid d was At any time 10 the possession
or nnd the couo Of he def .n aud whether defendant
rsIted the custody o the chd and il whom and
der whe authority she dsposed OF him; aud the defendant
suf.que order beri,s date Jan a. 1857 .ub.tg,ed
IN ihc Tsce ohc order the sh January somewhat modify
Ne previous GItc and decin e [s.e ct to Ip sPq haS wnS
resia'nt not whether he had been snsed to another
wlet time, what aud by what authority
nsdc BY the consent Of petitioner and her nqe. rhi'Ordtr
@ & s& Gds the be sSn before to Rfa n tho G h pdsI.u % e'
The rs"ee nov rPs from S proofs aud soeson. taken .sa
the control Of lie defendant n the Of August isi
hat although there evidence before him that the e,
'a' "'' tSt % svdsrGe w Tsy bcc,%s hin i'm
cid not show ws, 'le had eoie with tae child OF wni uI
ney became Of IT, He consequently rePo't' a. his c2n
the dcentsrt responsible dis Cou', the
unk that this report Pai!ly pded by the testimony 9s a.
ducedto part with TIE child in oLer words, wht she con
st any P,u .nS aS spi nToed H a on III I
o rbsr 20 lar es 10 as,is the Court in determining heTesf
'c fthe child should b. poiuccd, Whether the
Tlausitiy b. sfirud that mother VINO wa "no al
c'en 9nAiu 10 part win Der infant 'i,er M, G'n
liable Of suitably rcaJns aud Bringing child A. H as tue
cndAnt cernCd she cannot sva h.Tse o. su;h sa se
ton. clh csulot be d.poed Of or sienaed Ike chate
cr even, lot cpirsc the custody OF III, 'ee nae
clDditu. As Mr. Justice Cowen rlnaks Ia Toe People ag'
enGs to dispose OF his hdicn have slways been coL
sCtrd hnrbarous OuT lsv has allowed The eNef-
s,c q 'ueh power ckcsp t some spi' and temp ,'',y
arsrdsuship amer HI. death"
a ony Quc.ou tp l considered tef whether
'c .id any time in 'e Tc.. undo, thc c"nol
le defer dan' and ii 80 whether the defendant ba' parted
\ VIII aid child.
We haze e,n he eferce has reported that Re in the
sd under the control Of the defendant in th- month
e Ausus G She has entirely fa'd give any :,sf tory
a,cCunt Of w has BE- ot bin since th tine" Ours'sts
declares thst is not c for the person mp N whom TINS writ
,ha have duly served {! r. Sc s. masna ste
lis rwrr or resi" If he shall have had tle party in lis
power custody unier his Ierslu' at any time PRIOR or
SUBJ. queu the writ. but has transferred sch
r,tody or r.lai auo'her the shall pai,c
"ss t. wLom al whst tine for what cause aud By what a
| ihoii,y such trau,f,r took place" . go,
Assuming therefore as do that the defendant had this chi
N her roy end custody the h day of August 1872 when
ho'd be @ fully established in this case a1d wh''h sue
longer ssinaY she make further return under
fun explicit sud she s insist that she has not u,
in her power aud custody, and she has tsnscri
sIcciiy particularly TO whom what time for what cause and
| 5 whs suthory such transfer took place
vi dsys on the service OF he order 70 b. en-
t,cd this decision make thi. further return. in failure
which will be duty pTtuan 10 section d OF the sta ute
already moniorcd e r. s. 80 uarEina to -sse su stcnn'u 'u
sssiu. her commauj the sheriff spPreheud her aud bhus
| her before this CouIi.
| CH.ssrRs-ArRL 2l.-B. fore jade CLrSSr.-DEoI>oss
Wm. {. Noyes sSt. Vim. c. Dusenbeny ct al
| Order settled.
| Before Judge IScR,rAM.
Bearna Mcdonald ct a.. ast. Mary Stewart ct al
| Motion dsiied Cost. 10 abide event.
ae~Ir. ~ ps~F-f III