The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-07-17

0loohlSn ndu QulreQ, through Kings
county, piece Of land near Fort Ham
llton belinging to the Dyker Meadow
Improvement Company, George Napier,
who had the right TO remove a paNil-
ion and bath houses he had built there
under agreement with the company,
attempted 10 do so. but Park Commits
sloner Squier refused TO allow it, and
took possession OF them. with a guam
tity OF personal property in them. A
year later Mr.. Woodruff, who was
then park commissioner, when applied
10 Tor the building and other property,
declared that it was purchased from
the Improvement company and be-
ionged to the city Of Brooklyn for the
park department. The second appel
late division has affirmed Judgment
secured by Napier in his suit against
the city of Brooklyn for the conversion
OF this property holding, by Justice
Willard Bartlett, that though the act
OF Squier, being unauthorized, gave no
right OF action against Kings county
or Brooklyn, yet the assertion by Com
missioner Woodruff that the property
rlghtfully belonged to Brooklyn for its
park department, and his refusal TO re-
turn it, was an exercise of the right Of
dominion and control in the city. which
constituted an actionable conversion of
tne property, for which the city was
1able- 1t was not exempted by the
provisions of the city charter, and re-
manned liable under the general doc
trlne that the unauthorized acts of mu-
nlcipal officers are regarded as acts of
the corporation, provided the acts are
performed by that branch of the rnu-
nlcipal government which is invested
with Jurisdiction to act for the corpor-
alton upon the subject to which the
particular act relates
Dora Baruth. after suit brought
against her by Isaac Silverman had
been at issue about FIVE years, and no
steps had been taken to bring it to
triai, moved to dismiss the complaint
Ior want OF prosecution. Though il
was shown that the case had not been
placed on the calendar, and that young
er issues had meantime been tried in
their regular order, the plaintiff sue
ceeded in defeating the motion, when
llrst made, upon an affidavit made by
ms attorney, which simply showed that
the only excuse for the delay was that
the attorney had forgotten that the ac-
ton was pending. The motion was de-
MED, upon condition of plaintiff put
ting the case on the calendar for the
next term, and paying the costs of the
motion. This was not done, and no
excuse was offered for neglect or fail
ure to do so. In March, 1899, the de-
IenQant, upon the original affidaVits
and an additional one, moved for leave
TO argue the former motion. and for
dismissal upon the new default of
plalntin The first appellate division
mas directed reversal of an order de-
nylng the motion. Justice AfcLaughlin.
giving the opinion, holds that on the
conceded facts the last motion should
nave been granted. The plaintiff not
oniy did not comply with the condition
imposed. but did not even offer any
excuse for his neglect and failure to
90 so. This neglect and delay Of three
months, unexplained, together with the
preceding long delay of over five years
constituted laches of such a character
on the part of the plaintiff as TO require
dismissal of the complaint"
Not long since a misdemeanor case
came up before a Tennessee Justice of
the peace, who, coming from outside
the ranks of the legal profession and
having Just taken his seat. was rather
unfamiliar with court room procedure
| Inc counsel for the defendant let loose
great amount of lurid oratory in en-
Ideavoring to show that there was no
case against his client, and finally
said
I move, your honor, that the de-
PENDANT be discharged at the cost Of
the county,
There was no prosecuting attorney.
and when the defendants counsel took
his seat there was silence for a mo-
ment, all waiting for the next step. The
Justice looked inquiringly about the
leourt room and at last asked
| \. Dol hear any SECOND to the mo-