Evening journal., 1913-12-19
PIERCE FREE
| or THE CHARGE
OF ASSAULT
Judge ChurChman Decides
That Miss O'HanIOn Was a
TrsspaSSer In House
TESTIMONY CONFLICTS
ABOUT The FORCE USED

accession this morning in the case OF
Richard Pierce, charged with assault
ing Miss Catherine O'Hanlon about
two months ago. The case was
heard in City Court last Saturday, and
was continued until this morning for
decision. The Judge dismissed
( Pierce.
At the time of the trial. Miss
OHanlon testified that she went TO
he home of Pierce's parents to col
Iect rent due to her father on house /
IN which that defendants parents had |
Iormerly resided. She claimed she /
was assaulted by Pierce while in the |
house, BY being thrust out and struck |
and was made III as a result. He |
denied the charge.
Te case also hinged on whether |
Miss O'Hanlon had a right to enter
\ The house. whether she had the land
ibrds authority. and whether she
went there within forty days, as
specified by law TO make a levy. The
decision follows:
81 The complainant, on the first day of
November 1913 went to a certain
house on Brown street, to distrain up
tn the goods for rent in arrear, and
Que 21st day Of September, 1913 from
the tenant OF certain house on Sixth
.Ayenue
The goods and chattels upon which
khe distraint was TO be made by the
contplaiRant were removed by the
B owner from the Sixth Avenue house
. 10 the house on Brown street. on the
& Nrst day Of September.
The complainant sought admittance
10 the Brown street house, at the front
pf the house, and was refused. She
lthereupon went to the rear Of the
house and entered by the back door. |
and made the alleged distraint upon /
the goods and chattels In the Brown 1
street house, and walked into the par
Tor and left paper with a list Of the
goods eReon. with the defendant
Tie defendant, at once, ordered her
7fom the property.
The complainant insists that the de-
iendant pushed her violently and |
struck her several times in the back /
Mhiie she was leaving the house
tIhe defendant denies the pushing and !
aftiking, and is supported in his testi-
y p1ony by that Of his brother and his
q mother.
& k1he complainant is unsupported in
B her testimony
Arho defendant was given an excep-
# tlonally good character by seven wit
A nesses called for that purpose
81 hapter l2c. section 20 Of the revised
6 cqfe provides that a person entitled to
s. rSnt may distrain for same, either per-
~ thai'y OF by his bailih.
Section 23 of the same chapter of the
re sed code provides as follows;
Ill the tenant. either during his term.
ca estate, or after the end thereof re-
itvc his goods and chattels. on any Of
fafm, from the said premises without
rs'mcnt Of the rent due, or growing
dpe for the said premises and without
81 leense from the landlord or his agent,
ini writing under hand, the goods and
ch)ttels so removed unless sold fairly
# fW valuable consideration and deliv-
etsd to the buyer, shall be liable,
Va wherever found, TO be restrained for said
81 reHt for forty days after the removal;
# or If the rent be not in arrear at the
"a time Of the removal, for forty days after
# ths rent shall become in auear
Notice to the tenant 70 remove from
# the said premises shall not be a license
x githin this provision
81 fhe following questions present them
q SELVES:
- Mas the complainant who undertook
# to make this distraint the bailih of the
lendlordf
had the time fixed by law for fol-
M lowing the goods expired?
II the complainant was not author
lied by the landlord TO distrain and
n the time had expired for following
I tho goods, the complainant was a
Il trespasser when she went upon the
81 premises on Brown street.
The complainant testifies that she
was told by a constable to go to
Brown street and make the distraint,
which is not sufficient authority The
< bailif must be authorized by the
landlord 10 distrain. There "a no
evidence in the case that the land
lord, who Is the father of the COM
3 plainant, ever authorized his daugh-
ter to distrain for the rent The
complainant was therefore a tres
pasFer when she entered upon the
premises on Brown street
& As the rent for the Brown street
z property was not in arrear at the
2 tir5e of the removal OF the goods and
ehattels, the landlord. under the law,
could follow the goods and chattels
80 80 -: forty days after the rent became
<ifs hrrear.
l The rent in this case became in arreaI
S on the twenty first day Of September
5 The alleged distraint was made by the
complainant on the first day of Novcm
berto OF the forty first day after the rent
/.HX Itrtd iiit III hIictIs therefore tnt wa,
not within the law. and even though
She had been authorized as a bailif 1,
distrain for the rent. the time for ss
doing had expired and for this reason
also she became a trespasser when sh,
&& entered upon the Brown street premises
&& Being trespasser and admission L
IS q the premises having been denied to her
|Z thefdefendant had the right to put he
of the premises using such force, bu
! only such force, as was necessary.
W ue preponderance and weight of tn
testimony is that the defendant did no
use such force or violence upon the com
plainant, and even though there wer
- = anA doubt upon this his EXCEPTIONAL,
good Character would settle the doub
~ in bis favor.
Ihe case ig dismissed.
NOMINATE OFFICERS