New-York tribune., 1867-04-09
COURT OF APPEALS-APRL 8.
POWERS OF THE CITY JUDGE.

Louis
Louisa Nash was arrested and committed by Po-
lice Justice Of the City OF New-Y0rk on charge OF lar
ceny The City Judge Of the City of New-fork allowed
a writ of habeas corpus upon which she was discharged
on the ground that the commitment defective on ITS
face The General Term Of the Supreme Court IN the
ground that the City Judge Of the City OF - not
authorized to issue habeas corpus. From the Jndg-
ment entered this decision the present appeal Is taken
The sole question In this case Is as to the power Oh inc
City Judge to Issue wris OF habeas corpus dnE Vasa
tiOn and this again turns on the question whtt was
meant by the words OF the act creating the Oee Oh O
Judge all judicial powers vested by law IN tne %
der OF the City Of New York conferred on sucn Cl
Judge and such City Judge shall concurrenty WIN shd
Recorder perform and discharge all judicial duties I'M
On the one hand it is contended that the Recorder had
the powers Of Supreme Court Commissioners De0Is tue m
Constitution Of sl7 and that judicial powers include an
ministerial powers only to be exercised by Judge rs part
Srpnes or ns a Gfa the consmon Of @ in aboshng the
office OF Supreme Court Commissioner took away the
SOLELY and that the phrase Judicial duties" clearly
intended to distinguish between those s apcioSs SGSs
charters, from the more strictly judicial duties
The Court reserved its decision. -,
Mr. Gerry plaintiff in error; Mr. a. o. Hall for the
LAW OF RAnRoADs-wHAT IS NEGLIGENCE In A
u.,,v drew. ,y Guardian ng The sI,th ave Railroad Co.
In the month of January, 1851, Henry Drew the
plaintiff then about eight years OF age being on his way
was injured by being over by one
Of Defendants cars 80 that portion OF one 1901 sd & 10
car notion the boy beckoned TO by the brake
on the front platform. tho boy naVlhS lrst pecs
oned TO the driver to stop there was snow on te gouu
hiOck or ridge between the boy and carr that the car
being still in notion the at the brake seized the
plaintiff by his OvercOat and endeayOred 10 ft hn on
TO the front platform, but finding him too heavy, lou nun
fa Rs P ms 5Ss' iY a t Hbs brakeman for the defense
tended to show that he the boy running TOWARD t
ear coming close to get on that he put OUT ms manu- @
him Off he thought he was gong 10 get On ec
front platform, which was against the rules tnat nc p
on the brake and he the boy try to got on ana
saw there danger he put out his hands 10 ty anu
catch him. but failed TO do that II ho had caught I9
boy he would have fallen OF himself ana y SUR ~ nc % %
moi touch the boy and that he could not hold on 10 e
brake with hand and reach out To eaten ne DOy Ho
denies having beckOned 10 the boy.
on this testimony, the Court charged the jury hlIs
other things III these words ~ tI mas Dcon n
said by the defendants that the act OF Hogan was
not one which the defendants are liable because not
the line OF duty employment II seems 70 me- now
ever that the OF the Company on the car are
the line of their duty and employment IN neping tne
young iirn passengers In getting on or OH me
Judge refused TO charge requested thit III was
negligence the part OF the pIaintr 70 get upon t9
front platform OF the while III notion II tne Jury sn
believe he made tho attempt whether invited 20 MAKE
the attempt by the brakeman or driver or n0 anu t9
plaintiff would not be entitled to recover ana instructed
the Jury that ID would be negligence under te elFcu
He also supposed II the plaintiff had not been invited
he also charged that il the jury thought that the ure
beckoned TO the boy TO come on the fron PLATFORM ta
il would not be negligence In the boy TO 90 so -.
To each OF these charges and rofsals the ueiehuts
excepted The grounds OF the exception 10 the INST are
that t implies difference In the care required " young
and adult persons and that equal amount Oh cao Is
required Vt both TO show want OF negligence On ,uol
conceding that II within the scope OF tho agent
drivers or cOnductOrsD authority 70 DO such thlhS
Willie the clear rules OF the Company negotyed any suG
authority and had they gwen II 1t would DO neg-
Mr. Boariman for plaintiff, respondent eir oioSSOa I0I
defendant, appellant.