Norton v. Bennett

Headnote

Non-resident — who will he regarded as one, and required to give security for costs.

Appeal from an order denying tlie defendant’s motion, to compel the plaintiff to give security for costs.

The action was brought to recover' damages for an alleged libel, published by the defendant in his paper, on June 5, 1875.

The court, at General Term, said : “We think that after the commencement of this suit the plaintiff became a non-resident, within the meaning of that term as used in those provisions of the Revised Statutes which have regard to security for costs. His. business is of a somewhat transient character, consisting of the introduction into ships, hospitals, &c., of a patent automatic ventilator. For the last two years he has had no abiding place within this State. Nor has he had any property, interests, nor even place of business here. To all practical intents and purposes, he has entirely severed his connection with this locality. It is not pretended' that he could vote here, nor that he is liable to jury duty, nor that, he is assessable for personal tax. Then, as to his immediate family, his wife has been with him since the summer of 1878. They have lived in the cities of Baltimore, Md., Washington, D. 0., and Chelsea, Mass., and their home has been in the latter city since about the month of April, 1879. .

“ The deduction from these facts cannot be affected by the plaintiff’s mere assertion of continued residence in this city, nor by the expression of an intention to retain such residence; his intention must be gathered from his' acts, considered with reference to his habits, occupation and surroundings. The case is clearly within the object and intent of the statute. As to the amount, we think that a bond in $500 would be reasonable.”