Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Wend. 376

Stuart v. Simpson

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1828

New York Supreme Court · decided 1828-10-15

Error from the New-Yorlc common pleas. The action . , m the common pleas was case, brought by Stuart against Simpson, for enticing and harbouring his apprentices. It was proved on the trial in the court below, that the defendant had employed for a number of months two apprentices of the plaintiff, as supernumeraries, at the Park Theatre. There was, however, no evidence that the defendant knew that they were the apprentices of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a cabinet maker.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1828-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 1917 · most notably The People v. . Cook (1853), People v. Cook (1852)

33 state decisions

1101828183018401850186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

¶2The plaintiff was nonsuited in the court below, because, in the opinion of the court, there was no evidence to prove that the defendant knew the *379apprentices to be such. The circumstances relied on, are the youthful appearance of the boys, and the mahogany dust on their clothes. The court were right in deciding that these would not warrant the jury in finding that the defendant knew them to be apprentices. In my opinion the judge was correct, also, in refusing testimony to shew that other apprentices had been employed. The point contested, was the knowledge of the defendant in this particular case, and the evidence offered did not prove it. If, therefore, the scienter was necessary to be proved, the court below, in my judgment, decided correctly.

¶3But it is said that slight circumstances are sufficient to go to the jury, and whether the defendant knew the boys to be the plaintiff’s apprentices or not, was a question for the jury. I agree that courts should be extremely cautious, on the subject of interfering with the province of the jury; yet it is matter of common practice to set aside verdicts as against evidence, and sometimes because they are against the weight of evidence. If, therefore, the evidence would not authorize a jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, or the court would set it aside if so found, as contrary to evidence, in such cases it is the duty of the court to nonsuit the plaintiff

¶4As to proof of knowledge. It seems to be necessary, on authority, (2 Ch. Pl. 269, n. y., Stark. Ev. 1310, 11,) and the obiter opinion of Lord Kenyon, in Fores v. Wilson, (Peake’s N. P. Cases, 55.) It seems highly reasonable it should be so; and Starkie holds it necessary to prove the fact of soliciting, which is not shewn in this case, otherwise than by the payment of the twenty-five cents. No questions were asked, and no solicitations are sworn to. On the whole, I am satisfied, that if the defendant has been guilty of the offence charged upon him, it is not substantiated by evidence.

¶5The court below was correct, and their judgment should be affirmed.

/1/wend/376 · .json · Public domain