Sturges v. Maitland
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by consent of parties, to test the right of the plaintiff in the seizure of certain flour of the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by consent of parties, to test the right of the plaintiff in the seizure of certain flour of the defendant. The plaintiff, being an inspector of flour in the city of New York, seized 467 barrels of unbranded flour, belonging to the defendant, under the eighth section of the act entitled “An Act for the Inspection of Flour and Meal,” 2 R. L. 323, which section is as follows : “ Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, that if any person shall lade or attempt to lade on board any vessel, with intent to ship or export the same direct out of this state, any…
1Opinion of the CourtKent, C. J.
The testimony is admissible : all infringements of police laws must be tested by the intention of the party. Without a criminal intent, there is no breach of law.(1) The defendant then proved the facts above mentioned.
*210*It was then contended by the plaintiff’s counsel, -that there was a gross neglect in the clerk, .which was equivalent to a criminal intent, and therefore the penalty had attached.
*211Kent, C. J. The jury must pass upon both questions: the question of intention and the question of negligence. *212A neglect may be so gross as to amount to a criminal intent. If the jury should be of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morris v. PeopleCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Baker v. RichardsonNew York Supreme Court · 1823