(Page: 2)

Here is another case of a somewhat similar nature:

Landlord Ernest Tinneroth sought to have Mrs. Katherine Renard ejected from the second floor of 157 Evergreen avenue. The constable who made out the petition in the case failed to insert a necessary figure, and James McGee, the woman's counsel, was smart enough to take advantage of the omission. The petition read that the premises were hired from "August 1, 1892, to August 1, 189_." It should have been to August 1, 1893. It being a statuary proceeding the justice was obliged to dismiss the action on the ground of an imperfection in the papers, on Mr. McGee's motion.

In cases where the tenants fail to answer the petition in court, the landlords or constables in the respective cases are at once given dispossess warrants. The other day an effort was made in the Broadway court to eject Martin Ibert from the third floor of 1,004 Willoughby avenue. Mr. Ibert failed to respond when the case was called, but a friend walked up to the judicial bar and informed the judge that Ibert had gone to Rockaway on a day's outing. Judgment was given for the landlord, and when the complained of tenant got back from the seaside that night he was confronted by his household effects piled up on the sidewalk.

There is once in a while a laughable side to this dismal feature of city life. John S. Ferguson, an aged Twenty-fifth ward real estate agent, not long ago sought Judge Petterson's advice relative to getting rid of an objectionable tenant. Mr. Ferguson, it appeared, leased a flat to a man and wife, who declared that their family consisted of themselves and three children. Upon taking possession of the premises, six children instead of three moved in with the household goods.

"I want to know," Mr. Ferguson said to the magistrate. "whether I can get rid, under the law, of that surplus of young ones?"

The justice eyed his questioner curiously.

"What would you suggest," he asked the venerable agent, "under the circumstances? You wouldn't drown the extra three children, would you?"

"I would scarcely adopt such stringent measures," Mr. Ferguson replied earnestly, "but I think I ought to have possession of the premises, because they were leased under false pretenses."

"You are helpless in the case, "Judge Petterson declared. "The family can hold possession of the premises as long as they pay the rent and are not otherwise objectionable."

Mrs. Mary Jacobs, a German resident of 9 Boerum street, the same day told the Second district court judge, in answer to his query as to why she hadn't paid her rent, that her house was overrun with roaches as big as mice.

"You can move out if you don't like the premises, " she was told, "but if you remain you must pay the rent."

"I'll stay and pay the rent your honor," she retorted, "if you will send somebody to end the roaches."

The court informed her that the city hadn't provided it with power to grant the request and gave judgment for the landlord.

Sometimes peculiar legal complications arise in landlord and tenant cases and the acting magistrate, officiating constable and interested landlord are obliged to do considerable thinking before taking advantage of the seemingly plain law governing the case. For instance, John Jones is served with papers to vacate the premises he occupies for non payment of rent. Jones answers on the return day of the precept in court and acknowledges that he owes the rent claimed to be due. The court is about to give judgment for the landlord when the tenant objects.

"Your honor, my wife and two children are seriously ill and confined to their beds."

"But your rent is not paid?" the justice says inquiringly.

"No, sir, because I haven't had the money with which to pay it. All my money has gone for doctor's bills."

"This is a case in which justice might be tempered with mercy," the court remarks, "but the law don't make allowances for it. If the court issues a dispossess warrant in this action, the constable will probable serve it and the document will necessarily have the landlord's sanction. If the prostrated wife and sick children of this tenant are placed upon the sidewalk they may die. In that event Mr. Jones will have reasonable grounds for actions for damages against judge, constable and landlord. Wouldn't it be better," inquiringly to the landlord. "to stay the warrant in the case pending the recovery of Mrs. Jones and her children?"

Nine out of ten landlords accept the court's suggestion. If a landlord, under such circumstances insists upon his rights, the magistrate or rather the majority of them most likely would peremptorily refuse to sign the warrant and thereby risk being mandamused. In any event, it is not probable that any constable would assume the responsibility of executing a warrant in such a case, notwithstanding he was apparently protected by having the judge's signature attached. A case of this nature occurred in the Gates avenue police court during Judge now register Kenna's administration. Judge Kenna was perhaps, the most precise
magistrate who ever presided over a lower court in this city. Although disposed to be considerate to the unfortunate who faced him, where consideration was deserved, he invariably held that he was appointed to dispense justice according to the law, and was frequently heard to remark that he did not make the law, and was therefore not accountable for its effects. John J. Quinn, a real estate dealer of Sumner and Lexington avenues, represented the landlord in the case about to be cited. Mr. Quinn, through Constable Cornwall of Gates avenue, took out dispossess papers in Judge Kenna's court for the ejectment of W. Ambrose Wellwood and family from the dwelling house 234 Sumner avenue. Constable Cornwall started out to execute the warrant, but upon arriving at the premises discovered that Mrs. Wellwood was lying dangerously ill, and in view thereof postponed serving the official paper. A day or two later Dr. George W. Cushing of 221 Schermerhorn street, mailed a statement to Judge Kenna to the effect that Mrs. Wellwood was seriously ill. The tenant, however, did not deny that the rent was unpaid. The court then declared that it had no further jurisdiction in the matter and signed the warrant of ejectment. Agent Quinn at once requested Constable Cornwall to execute it. That official, however, positively refused to lend a hand to, as he characterized it, any such inhuman act, and pocketed the warrant for several days, or until Mrs. Wellwood's recovery, despite Mr. Quinn's protests.

A more recent case where the magistrate "stretched the law a point," there by assuming a responsibility which Judge McAdam says a justice has no power to take upon himself, came up in the Broadway court. The title of the action was "Maria Hein vs. John Cox."

"Maria Hein is here," a fashionably dressed woman responded with alacrity when Judge Peterson called the case, "and I want possession of my premises at once."

"Your honor," Constable Albert Bienderman interjected, "Mrs. Hein seeks to dispossess Mr. and Mrs. John Cox from the three front rooms on the top floor of 210 North Second street. Mrs. Cox is bedridden and her husband recently met with an accident which has prevented him doing any work. The afflicted family is penniless. Husband and wife, I find, are even suffering for proper medical aid."

"That may be so," Mrs. Hein interrupted vehemently, "but my trouble with those tenants must end. I ask for a warrant."

"Madam," Judge Petterson said deliberately, "charity covers a multitude of sins. No warrant will be issued in connection with these papers for the present."

Constable Blenderman promised to interest some charitably inclined Brooklynites in the case and to the evident distaste of the landlady the hearing was adjourned until the following week.

(Continue On Page: 3)