Comfort v. Thompson
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Comfort brought an action of debt against Thompson, before the justice, to recover the penalty under the act to prevent injury by dogs, passed the 24th of March, 1801. (Sess. 24. c. 62.) The plaintiff, in his declaration, stated, that the defendant, after being notified that his dog had chased and killed sheep, had kept him, and not killed him, &c. The cause was tried by a jury.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Comfort brought an action of debt against Thompson, before the justice, to recover the penalty under the act to prevent injury by dogs, passed the 24th of March, 1801. (Sess. 24. c. 62.) The plaintiff, in his declaration, stated, that the defendant, after being notified that his dog had chased and killed sheep, had kept him, and not killed him, &c. The cause was tried by a jury. The plaintiff proved that the defendant’s dog had killed one of bis sheep, and two sheep belonging to another person, on the 10th of September last. That verbal notice…
1Per curiam
The verdict is, no doubt, clearly against evidence ; hut this being an action for a penalty, there is no new trial granted, in such cases, on the ground of the verdict being contrary to evidence, provided the verdict be for the defendant, and there be no irregularity in the case. (2 Stra. 899. 1238.) There is, at least, as strong reason for applying this rule to such trials in justices’ courts, as in any other.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by5 opinions
- People v. TownsendNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Baker v. RichardsonNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Decker v. StauringNew York Supreme Court · 1879
- Wheeler v. CalkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- United States v. One Hundred & Seventeen Packages of Plug TobaccoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1879