The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-03-29

DALY-In the case of Moloney against Dows
where the plaintiff brought an action for
damages sustained during the reigu of the last
Vigilance Committee in San Francisco, the Court
of Common Pleas, by Mr.. Justice DAILY, yester-
day granted the motion of Mr.. O'Conor, for de.
feDdant, and ordered a non-suit, sending Mr..
Moloney out Of court Several other suits of the
same nature will share similar fate; and in one
view Of the matter, such disposition Of them is
emiDeDtly proper.
We have printed this very important decision
in another part Of to-day's paper, and have only
space to say few words in relation to it.
The decision is one of the highest consequence.
If sustained by the highest tribunals of the State
to which We presume the case will be carried,
and If the same principle is maintained by the
Judiciary of the other States and by the federal
judiciary, the effect upon the relations of the ct
zens Of the respective States OF the confederacy
viii be very material and extensive. The ques-
ton decided by Judge Daily is one of jurisdiction.
The law fer all the State courts to observe, If
that decision be sound is, that no State court can
take cognjzance Of civA suit for redress of any
mere personal tort wrong or injury committed
in another of the States Of the contederacy, but
that the tribunals of the State within which such
assault was committed have exclusive iurisdic-
ton of such action. This ruling of Judge DAILY
is. we are informed, not supported by any ex-
press decision made in either the State courts or
the federal judiciary; and, indeed the point, we
learn, has never before been distinctly raised.
Able and experienced lawyers, however, who have
read the opinion of the Judge, maintain that tits
sound law, and if sustained will tend more to es-
tatlish the principle Of the separate and indepen-
dent sovereignty Of each State, except where
such attributes have beer yielded up by the fede
raj constitution, than any decision made since
the adoption of that constitution.
1t will be noticed in this case that the Injured
party had two other legal resorts open to him
One was to bring an action in the courts Of the
State where the injury was inflicted upon him.
We are not to assume that the State Of California
is incapable of measuring out exact justice to
all her citizens; and if we assume the principle
that we are to try all such cases here, we might
have all the ruffians in Kansas coming here to
settle their old difficulties by actions for assault
in our courts. New York being great centric
mercantile, social and political-we might, In
time see our courts continually occupied with
suits between non-residents while residen
litigarts would only have the burden of paying
for the expense of the courts without the priv
lege of using them. 10 another view Of the mat
ter, Mr.. Mcloney might have sued as citizen of
the United States in federal court The seve-
raj States claim sovereignty so FIR as the reguia
ton of their internal affairs 60 and it seems to be
good common sense, if not good law--and proper
ly taken they are identcal-tbat the Slate of New
York should not be called upon to settle person.
al difficulties between citizens Of California oc-
curing in that State. OF course reference here
is made only to actions like that under review.
Debts or breaches Of contract follow parties any,
where, and to them alone, according TO this de-
cisiop, can State comfy he extended.
AS matter Of convenience and relief 10 our
courts, already overworked, Judge Days deci-
sion viii be welcomed by the bar and be ap-
proved by the public generally. The broad
ground laid down in it as to State sovereignty
Will no doubt be amply discussed throughout
the country, and We look for the drift of public
opinion about it with no little curiosity.