The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-11-13
JERSEY LEGAL INCONSISTENCIES.

Interesting to Lawmnlxcrs-A Series OF Queer
Cases OF UnpunsI,nbIe Malicious Mischief.
In the State Of New Jersey there Is general law
prescribing punishment for malicious mischief and
consequently many persons guilty or outrageous
crimes OF this character escape The clutches OF tho
law and perfectly free TO continue their nefarious
practices while the victims have no legal re-
dress. Yesterday iorcible In point came
to the notice OF the Newark authorities,
the particulars Of which are thcse:-A lady
Of most prcpossessing appearance, named Mrs.
Loomis residing with her mother-in-law In Webster
street. appeared before the Police Court magistrate
Justice Dean, and stated that few days ago her
husband had occasion TO go from home some dis.
lance business, and purposing herself to make a
visit to relatives in the country shed ischarged
her nurse girl named Catharlne German. she
had had words with her whatever and dis
charged her simply because her babies, twins, no
longer needed her services. After Catharne had
taken her departure Mrs. LOOMS discovered that an
her best dresses and a beautiful new cachmerf,I
shawl we're completely ruined, having been daube.
all with the contents OF a pomatum pot
The garments were kept aad found in Sc se
parate places, and everything went to show
that :, the act was not accidental. but de-
she verify believed the perpetrator OF the outrage
Gus acts was none other than Catharne. The magis-
trate luy agreed with her tlat such piece or wan
ton righteousness ought to be severely punished,
but there was no law whereby the suspectei
CTHullLtl COutu Ue uctHlncu even III there
tive proof that her He referred her how
ever, to the County Prosecutor, Mr.. Ellsworth bus
that gentleman also declared that there was no law
to cover the case. Mrs. LOOMS retired disguised
with such Jersey justice" that but still felt con-
soed, she said, that Ca;harine had not vented her
anger on the twins
There are numberless other In point where
parties could obtain redress for the wolul ana
malicious destruction OF personal property. Not
long ago q party or half.drunken fellows went into
respectable sample room and wifully smashed
tumblers, pier glasses, &C., but could not be held.
person went into store and smashed a handsome
showcase, and In ike manner the sufferer could
secure no redress Some years ago farmer In
Somerset county had a valuable COW famed by q
malicously inclined person. The latter indicted
tried and found guilty In the Oyer and Terrniner,
but the case was appealed TO tho Supreme
Court IN 1855, when Chief Justice Green rendered
the decision ana decided that the law could only
hold good where an animal was killed destroyed.
There are several special laws where punishable acts
are specified Ii is q crime ~ destroy vegetables in
a mans garden, cut or deface his trees but not to
MAIN or disable his horse COW. In his decision
Judge Green said:-"Ihe general rule Is that In
juries OF a private nature, unless they some way
concern the king or AFFECT the public lndctabo
at common law.n Mr.. Ellsworth viii prepare law,
such Is much needed in these cases. aud submit it
to the Legislature this winter.