The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-09-15
OMNIBUS FOR BROTHER BEEcuER.
mouiton's suit Getting beyond the Control Of
Plymouth Church Influence.

Plymouth Church Influence.
Justice Dykman rendered yesterday his
decision on the preliminary motion In the suit
OF Francis ID. Mouton against Henry Ward
Doecher, holding that the defendant must make
In New York county his motion to change the
place Of rial. Tho decision was as follows;
DYKMAs, J.-This Is an action for malicious prysecu.
piairt was the county OF Kngs. After the cause had
Pg ay sS ey 9 o,oT or IN % &
september 1910. to change the place Of trial from the
BE- h II {" oS S inter- ns l o me
aotcc Of motion aud within the time Al owed ~ Jaw
!! mt IN S!..s The eIsee Of ris was so In the city
motion on the nrst Monday OF September an Objection
was maoe to the hearing Of II tae ground that the
Of New York. and motion IN the case could be made
or heard 10 Kings county, This question must be de-
Inc plantf had the right under section l7s Of the
place OF III was thereoy chaaged to toe city aud
county OF New iork, THIS ioos from the defendant
AZ the Place OF trial was ther,oy changed from the
q llry could oc Obtained In that county ornlt.
Bu II Is seid that the amendment must not prejudice
fore. this motion must be decided precisely
oyeriOoks a. portsnt tact n the place Of rls Is
now changed u must be chsnssi from tue city aud
wnich the motion IL founded must be as sppic.Die TO
county Of Kings. This won be the se If the mo-
tons are made upon tnc ground OF conyencnce OF wit
not Applicable and have NO reference all to toe city
and county a New forG the PLACE OF trial could not
TINS motion IL founded.
we'll ed IN i2 Howard, Practice Reports. &c. In
ad ana the the aeieap % the Seu COUNTY %
hare. rnc place. ~ trial was laid 10 the original
new served upon the plaintiffs attorney demand tlat
e @ p A 70 zee RsT sSTas ne ps IN
q motion 70 change the place OF ,rial from
sstins ali these facts. sSo tss tie defendant had
z large num1ee OF material Witnesses residing IN
snd notice I m9ton. the plaietTs attorney ainegd
ALBANY 10 schoharic county. Mr. Justice Hurts, IN
~ oplnions specia! Ieri says; " Tue defendant at
move upon two grounis lac had demanded that the
ia ssd not iSnGeI eoSseS mat L should ii iha be-
changed. He WAS therefore. entitled to move under
the nrsi subdivision Of the is6tn section of the Code.
The cause was at issue aud MS AFFIDAVIT eho sed that
the convenience 81 al eses req red that tue venue
the thd subdivision Of the same section. But after
he had a Right under the l72i section Of the
Sooe. amended ms complaint Inc only change made
btny to schenectady, where the ainttf resided. ny
gro1nd OF his motion. rhe venue Was now 10 the
proper county. though net the same county to which
would not be authorized to grant the motion to
eau il wss tue pice OF the defend nt's re.iience
Tue learned Juixe then examined thc on the
,ad. among other tnlng. 1T l. obvious nan Iic am
davt upon which the IN jtion lie founded ~ a. aup caDIe
to tue issue to De maze upon the amended cOnD liant
IL to TINS ISSUE II existed when am
was made. The contrary u not pre- ended. There
no re,son, therefore why TINS m,ton should mot be
granted"
This conclusion is right for this reason; when the
amend nent made the drfen iane. nv the proceed
Tugs already had the action hat the right have te
place 81 tfial changed not only from AiDtny out also
from ~cuenec nni COUNTY the paper- upou which
the motion was founded shoVcltt. The painUf could
nor pre- nee tnit right ny the amendment Il hi- coh
paiut, aud therefore 10 proper to hear grant
the motion. Such l. not the case here. tue derud
at the tine OF the amendment hal occurred no g It's
hy uruceedin ready had q have place u
trial changed from the city and coulty OF New lOrk.
A. the i not ANALOGOUS 20 tn under consi-
GRAFTON. % Is obvious tnat II Is not authority for the
defend ut. Gu the contrary, the holds
suendment of the complaint deprived the defendant
OF thc nr-t guuud ~ u-n1lOn " Is An authority
favor OF the plaintiff on TIL. question.
The distinction attended to ue made Il this The
place IT trial Ia this seton l. county
OF New YORK. At he time the molten noticed the
ace of trai toe county " klug aul the motion
WAS properly noticed Tor that county. Now. as the
palnt. rght to amend hls complaint must be without
preu lice 10 tue ceHdi Already had, the
ngut sin be male ami heard m kings cuunty II tue
gruunn- which the motion l. u scd ~cre spplicahe
t. the cty aud county Of New york. and the place Of
tril could be removed these II cannot
De so removed ami as no proceedings ready had
TT ed the defendant u removal Of tie place Of thai
IRON the city and county u New lOrg. the motion
cannot he heard IN the county OF Kings
The preliminary hI,ctiJn Is therefore sustained and
the defendant must nave leave to make his motion
M