The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-06

were aggregated under single head, and that
therefore the rule applied that q demurrer would
not lie 70 part OF defence; that the remedy was
by motion.
clauses demurred TO In TACT constituted distinct
and separate deences, and could. therefore, be
bearing upon the points IN question and con
tended tnat nothing had been shown which would
but mitigating circumstances, ana that they had
not been pleaded so as TO make them admissible
The Court took the papers and reserved its de-
ctslon.
SUING A LONDON COMPANY.
In 1871, on the night OF February Q, a train,
loaded with oil, was on its way from Albany to this
city, on the New York Central and Hudson River
Railroad. The train was knocked on the track
while crossing the bridge to the south of New
Hamburg. One OF the cars was lett lying across
the up track. About ten O'Clock, on the night in
question, the express train, going up, came into
collision with the oil train; and the result
OF this collision was that the locomotive
were utterly destroyed by the connagration which
ensued: The then American and Merchants
the Won Express Cons as
panyl had on the baggage car large quantity OF
valuable valuable merchandise nd upon which they placed a
value or about So. 5l2 So. They claim that this
property was completely ruined by the collision,
and they now bring q SUIT against the Imperial
Insurance Company OF London in which they mad
insured the merchandise, Tor the recovery OF the
amount OF the policy-a sum OF about $4,000 1t
appears that there Is clause In the policy to the
effect that the insurance company VIII not hold
themselves liable for damages resulting from the
santisiy Is that the loss in the present instance
having been caused by the burning or petroleum,
the plaintiff under the clause In question in the
on trial In the United States Circuit Court before
Judge Wallace and Jury. IL Is not likely to con-
clude Tor day or two.
SUIT AGAINST JUDGE BENEDICT.
In october. 1873, Edward Lange was convicted
before Judge Benedict, OF the United States CIR.
cult Court, OF stealing some Post once bags OF
less value than $25. The extreme penalty author
lied by the statute under which the accused was
convicted was Imprisonment for one year, or to
pay fine OF 5000. On the Sd OF November the &C.
cused was sentenced to pay fine OF 5000 Ind also
be imprisoned for one year. On the succeeding
day the me was paid. few days afterward a
writ OF habeas corpus was obtained, succeeding
which the prisoner was resentenced, this time
the hne being RENTED ana the punishment lin
tied to one year in State Prison. On the
18th OF last January writs OF habeas corpus and
certlOrari were granted by the Supreme Court OF
the United states in the case, the result OF which
was that the second sentence was adjudgcd to
have been pronounced without authority, and the
prisoner was ordered TO be discharged. Following
this, LANCE brought an action against Judge
Benedict Tor $50, 900 for false Imprisonment. The
defendant demurred to the complaint on the
ground that 1t did not state facts SUFFICIENT to
SCltut6 cause OF aCClOn. TnlS demurrer was
argued at length before Judge Van Brunt in
Special Term OF the supreme Court who gave his
decision Yesterday. The answer to the first point
raised. that the second sentence was lawful and
the Judgment or the United States Supreme Court
is not binding upon thts Court, Judge Van Bruut
deems 1t indecorOus 70 attempt to review the de-
berare decision OF the highest judicial tribunal in
the land, and tnereupon-assuming. the second
sentence to be without authOrity-he discusses the
other questions raised on The demurrer. "Thcre
IS no principle he says (which Is better settled
than that no Judge OF o court OF record is liable
to action for judicial act, although In many OF
the cases distinctions are made between the la
bllltes OF Judges holding courts OF limited jurs-
diction or superior or general Jurisdiction" For
the purpose OF this demurrer he does not consider
1t necessary, however, to determine whether the
United States Court was o limited general juris-
diction. After citing various opinions he concludes
that in this case the plaintiff having been convicted
and suffered one OF the alternate punlshments to
which alone the law subjects MIN, his sentence
to be imprisoned for an offence which he nad al.
ready eXplated was without authority and a viO-
latlOrof the common law and the constitution.
Furthermore after a careful examination OF the
authorities he is oil opinion that judge OF q court
Of general Jurisdiction who attempts to enforce
Judgment which he knows to have been satisfied
makes himself liable in an action. The demurrer
Is therefore overrued, with leave to the defend
ant to answer on payment OF COSTS
THE GREAT DREW POOT, STITT