Hasbrouck v. Schoonmaker — 9 Cow. 692

Majority

p. 728

Hasbrouck and others against Schoonmaker.^[2]

ALBANY,

Feb. 1825.

Headnote

In trespass for cutting, under the act, (1 R. L. 525,) for a wilful trespass where the whole recovery is less than $50, in favor of the plaintiff, he must pay costs to the defendant.

In trespass qua,re clausam fregit, and for cutting wood and timber, contrary to the statute, (1 R. L. 525.) The plaintiff recovered $6, which the court at October term, 1824, trebled on motion; but they refused to treble the costs. (3 Cowen’s Rep. 346, S. C.) The defendant after-wards perfected a judgment in his own favor for his costs, which

C. H. Ruggles now moved to strike out.

J. Sudam, contra.

The particular statute, (1 R. L. 525,) upon which the plaintiffs recovered, would doubtless have given them full *costs, under the words, “ to be recovered with costs before any court having cognizance of the suit.” But the 5th section of the act extending the jurisdiction of justices, denies costs in all cases cognizable before a justice, unless the plaintiff recover more than $50. (Laws vol. 4, 80 c.(a) This does away and completely repeals the particular clause touching the costs in the act itself, and throws the case upon the general act concerning costs, which clearly gives them to the defendant.

Motion denied