94 N. J. L.

For

Pettit v. Pritchard Co.

affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF Justice, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, BERGEN, BLACK, WHITE, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 12.

For reversal-KALISCH, J. 1.

LEROY I. PETTIT, RESPONDENT, v. C. W. PRITCHARD COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT.

Submitted March 22, 1920-Decided June 14, 1920.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:

"The question is purely one of fact, and we cannot disturb the finding of the trial court.

"The consideration for the contract was the agreement of the plaintiff to continue in the defendant's employ when he was under no obligation to do so. Mr. Pritchard told him to go when he first suggested leaving, and there seems to have been no contract to keep him, except the new one then made on which plaintiff now relies.

"Let judgment be entered for the plaintiff."

For the appellant, Charles E. S. Simpson.

For the respondent, John A. Hartpence.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, WHITE, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 12.

For reversal-None.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, V. STEPHEN CARRIGAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued March 4, 1920-Decided June 14, 1920.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 93 N. J. L. 268.

For the defendant in error, J. Henry Harrison.

For the plaintiff in error, Andrew Van Blarcom.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance-SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, BERGEN, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 7.

For reversal-PARKER, KALISCH, WHITE, TAYLOR, JJ. 4.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. KATE MORRIS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted March 22, 1920-Decided June 14, 1920.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported. in 94 N. J. L. 19.

For the plaintiff in error, Frank M. McDermit.

For the state, J. Henry Harrison, prosecutor of the pleas, and John A. Bernhard, assistant prosecutor.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance-SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, BERGEN, KALISCH, WHITE, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 10.

For reversal-PARKER, J. 1.

INDEX.

ANIMALS.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

excluding certain questions, even
if technically improper, will not
lead to a reversal, if such ex-
clusion did not constitute harm-
ful error. State v. Fisher, 12

1. In an action for damages, based 1. The ruling of a trial court in
upon injuries sustained because
of a vicious animal, it is not
necessary that the vicious record
of the animal should be pre-
cisely similar in detail to that
upon which the action is
founded, and neither is it neces-2. With

respect to permanent

sary in order to fasten liability courts of record, vested with

upon the owner that he should;
have notice of previous injury
to others. It is the propensity
to commit the mischief and not
the actual commission of it that
constitutes the danger, and.
therefore, it is sufficient if the
owner has seen or heard enough
to convince a man of ordinary
prudence of the animal's inclina-3.
tion to commit the class of in-
juries complained of. Liberman
v. Drill,
387

2. Section 3 of the act of 1915
(Pamph. L., p. 387), which
provides that all persons sum-
marily arrested for violating the
provisions of an act for the pre-
vention of cruelty to animals
(Pamph. L. 1880, p. 218), shall
be tried before any magistrate
within the county nearest to
where the offence or offences
were committed, does not confer
exclusive jurisdiction on the
justice residing or having an
office nearest the place where!
the offence was committed.
Jackson v. Burdge,

common law powers, every in-
tendment is in favor of the
legality of their proceedings.
and only when their errors are
affirmatively shown are they no-
ticed by courts sitting in review
of their proceedings. Steinberg
v. Mindlin,

32

Where the Supreme Court sits
as a reviewing tribunal, and the
respondent there is appellant in
the Court of Errors and Ap-
peals, the only proper assign-
ment of error in that court is.
that the Supreme Court erred in
giving judgment for the success-
ful instead of the unsuccessful
party; and under such an as-
signment the appellant in the
Court of Errors and Appeals
could advance any argument
tending to show that the Su-
preme Court erred in giving
judgment against him for any of
the reasons upon which that
tribunal rested its decision.
Thompson v. East Orange, 103

394 4. Where the statement of the case

3. Jurisdiction in cases of violation
of the act for the prevention of
cruelty to animals (Pamph. L.
1880, p. 218) is conferred by
Pamph. L. 1915. p. 387, on all
justices of the peace of the
county. except in places where
there is a District Court. Ib.

sent up to the appellate court
does not contain the testimony
taken at the trial, it will be as-
sumed that the evidence com-
mented upon by the court in the
charge to the jury was all that
was material upon the partic-
ular subject under discussion.
Karnitsky v. Mashanic, 127