The New York herald., 1869-02-03
SUPREME C0URT-GsNERAl TERM.
The Jurisdiction Of the House or Refuge.
Before Judges Clerke Sutherland and Barnard.

The Jurisdiction Of the House OF Refuge.
Before Judges Clerke, Sutherland and Barnard.
TIE People, eI rel. The Society Jor the Reformation
or Juvenile Defnquents, us. Francis Degnen.-The
respondent, boy or about sixteen years OF age,
committed to the care and custody OF the REALTORS
he having been charged with the crime OF petty lar
ceny. Judge Barbour Of the Superior Court, dis
charged the boy upon habeas corpus, on the ground
mainly that under the statute no imprisonment for
longer period than one year could be imposed for
petty larceny. while the term OF this sentence was
indefinite The reators brought the case before this
court on cer0rar to review the proceedings before
the
Ing the petitioner, Degnen, to the custody OF the In
stiution.
creating the society gave its managers power to
into the House OF Refuge certain classes OF
delinquent Children" and to place them during their
minority at such useful employment and instruct
them IN such useful knowledge as should be suitable
to their years ana capaey rr % ,% 70 Oe made
OF city OF New York Of all facts aud particulars
which tended to show the effects, whether advan-
taeeous or otherwise, OF the associations; and the
Legislature also directed that the act Should be
strued by the courts benenciay and favorably for
every humane and laudabe purpose therein con.
tained The Institution was created for purposes OF
reformation, and not OF punishment. In furtherance
also OF tins charitable design Of reformaton courts
were empowered instead of sentencing them TO a
State prison county JAIL order their removal TO
Imposed, but instead thereof the delinquent IL CON-
mitted to the care and custody OF this establishments
and the leraned Judge fell into error IN constituting
otherwise.
In his opinion Judge Cierke also holds that 1t is
mistake to say that the term Indicated In the con.
victon is Indefinite, far as IL gives the House OF
Refuge authority TO conne person for an upascer-
tainabe period. The words OF the conviction itself
sufficient certainty to the authority given by law to
this institution and that Is In express terms 10
..retain in is custody male persons until their
tnrity ana female persons until the OF eighteen
years. Even II there was any ambiguity IN the IAN.
guage it should be construed literally: Tor Tue au.
effect on the individual person and on society," and
In relation to the former the exercise OF the au-
thority aInounts to o computation OF tue ordinary
punishment Strictly speaking the confinement OF
the House Of Refuge does not partase OF the dcrra
dalton or physical suffering TO which persons are
subject usually in prisons. It's discipline is reforma
tory with the view OF saving persons during the sus
ceptbiity OF tender years from total prongacy and
restoring them 10 society In condition no longer
dangerous To IT,
Interesting Question of Liability for Personal
Injuries.
Osborne, Appellant, rs. The Union Per1y Company
Resp0ndent.-ILs case was argued on appeal from
. Judgment against the plaintiff upon nonsuit.
The action was brought to recover damages for an
injury sustained by plaintiff In consequence OF the
alleged misconduct OF defendants. The plaintiff,
together with his wife and other pembers Of his
family on the 18th Of February, 1868. about seven
O'Clock IN tue evening, crossed from Brooklyn In one
OF the defendants ferryboats. and after crossing
passed out of the ferry house the regular way for
messengers 10 get TO omnibus az the loot OF Ful.
ton street, New York. The night being dark, and no
lamp being In the street or the premises OF the
deiendants TO afford qht to ferry other passen-
ser in that part OF the street, the plaintiff stumbled
o,er piece OF timber used 70 support q prop that
upheld q cornice OF the new ferry house which was
then being built Tor defendants. The exact
place of tle accident and OF the piece Of timber
which ne fell was outside OF the ferry gate aud pre-.
misses and on the pupc highway or street, but still
almost adjoining the gaze: Inc erIy house was
pnuy, under contract with the defendant, py
wbloh the company was TO put up the work accord
ing 10 rpccncaiun, IN such manner not 20 inter-
ierc viii the operaton OF the ferry and was 10 rnt
up all necessary guards aud to perform all other due
and proper acts and things for the safe protection OF
ne soDs aud property. Judge Clcrke delivered the
decision Of the court In an extended opinion, in
which he holds that unless relieved by the con-
tract tue ferry company was guilty OF nesigence
decisions was tnat where contractor has
STIMULATED To use the necessary precautionary
measures 70 proec. tne public sganst .ne
Tie CONTRACTS In this case the Judge holds, does not
provide FOR tue use Of any lsuch precautionary
measures. The Judge IN conclusion says:--The
auestlon involved In this case IL something more
than question OF negligence The piece ol timber
over which the plaintiff fen was placed and con.
q in the concurrence OF the defendant The placing
and Keeping OF Il there were the commission and
continuance Of nuisance y was IN obstruction Of
lc being entitled 10 the OF the street and high
way. Whoever without special authority obstructs
or renders Ito use hazardous by doing anything
on. above or below the surface IL guilty OF
a nuisance, ana anyone SUSTAINING special
damage from II without any want OF due care 70
Sinulng that nuisance. The act Is wrongful aud
dOes.not involve the question OF mere negligence,
and consequently IN the case before us even y tne
eonHscs between The defendant spd Architectural