The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-10-21
Verdict against tho Police Commission
crs Set Aside.
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON

Before Hon. Judge Hilton.

PLEAS
Before Hon. Judge Hilton.
OCr. 20.-Pder HeFamdn Is. James ". Nye and
others, Police C0mmissiones-A motion was brought on
this morning. founded the Judges minutes OF the trial.
that the verdict rendered in this few days SINCE be
set aside against the weight Of the evidence,
against the entire evidence submitted to the jury He
was replied to at length by counsel for the plaintiff,
After the argument Judge Hilton stated, in substance,
that the only question presented which would be
sdered upon the application was, whether the evidence
submitted to the jury could be regarded sufficient TO
Justify their verdict, or whether the verdict was not
against the clear and decided weight OF the testimony in
the cases The plaintiff sued Of certain property,
which he claimed that defendants, acting by persons
their employ and under their authority unusty deprived
HIM Of appeared that the property consisted Of lea
Their travelling bag, containing several pieces Of silk,
mantla fur cape and some jewelry, brought by his wife
from Philadelphia in the evening train Of cars upon the
accompanied her home in carriage, stopping
their way tat pawnbroker's shop, where the bag
who came to the door. The boy was unknown to the
plaintiff and seemed not to have been questioned further
than to ascertain s whether ne M was At home
the plaintiff left the bag saying he would all in the
morning and get some money on it, These circumstances
cci ,ainy were very suspicious, and were enough TO
justify the defendants Police Commissioners in taking
charge Of the property until owner came for it who
could show least right its possession But this
was not all that the evidence disclosed, and without
infinitely detailing it, the Judge said that he would refer
to that rart where appeared that upon the the de-
denied that he the owner and although he explained
this somewhat by saying that his denial induced
no riehtfuny owned, yet he did not explain,
why he deemed the property too expensive for
his wife to keep before he had set his eyes on it, Why
If il was So he preferred raising money on Il at pawn
brokers' dposing of absolutely by sale; why he
stated to the property clerk Of the defendant when he
called demanding return Of the bag and CONTENTS
that he had purchased the goods for the purpose Of set
ting up poor woman in business. These omissions and
The circumstances Of the tended TO throw great dis
credit upon plaintiffs testimony, and left 1t Ia tho
Judges opinion insufficient warrant the jury In coming
TO the conclusion did and although tho granting the de-
fendants motion placed upon the distinct ground
that the verdict against the and decided weight
OF the testimony, yet the Judge added that he felt
grated in being able 70 arrive at such conclusion in
case like the present, nasmnch as this action was
against the defendants public officers acting in mat
ter for the welfarepf the community, in endeavorng TO
restore to the true property, which, say the
least was liable to the suspicion that 1t did not belong
TO the person who claimed It's possession.
Their error, any has been committed,
Is Judgment and made not with any intent OF de-
pviHg the plaintiff OF anything TO which he might be
Justly entitled. He has given ground for mplaint
the course adopted, he told repeatedly that any
reasonable evidence Of his ownership Of the goods ques
ton would Immediately secure their return to him but
while he could not produce any such, specify
particularly tho goods he claimed, they would retain them
until tho true owner appeared At the trial the evidence
Of his ownership consisted principally OF tho legal pre-
sumption arising from the fact Of his possession and
although this was all he strictly required to show
vet under the circumstances, should not have been per-
ited TO outweigh the case by the defendants
Tho verdict then directed to be set aste for the
reasons stated and trial ordcrcd and an order
entered accordingly.
Counse for thc plaintiff upon the giving Of the decision
stated that he hoped the would be again set down
trial fore Judge Hilton there having been on neither
side any objection to his rulings upon the questions law
and his familiarity with the would be uesao4e upon
the re-trial
Counsel for plaintiff assentcd to this but the Judge do.
clircd making any special direction, saying that must
take its chance upon the general calendar of the court
when reached.