
    Goodman Telzer, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    November, 1908.)
    Municipal Courts — Jurisdiction — Municipal Court — Action for malicious prosecution.
    Where a passenger sues a carrier in the Municipal Court of the city of New York for damages arising from his having been roughly and improperly ejected from defendant’s train, after having paid his fare, and having been arrested and taken through the streets and imprisoned overnight, on a false and malicious charge; though proof of the assault and slanderous abuse in the car may be taken as offered in support of his cause of action for breach of the carrier’s contract, the admission of evidence to establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution is error, as the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction over such causes of action.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of Kew York, first district, borough of Manhattan.
    George D. Yeomans (Francis R. Stoddard, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
    Palmieri & Wechler, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The complaint sets forth four distinct causes of action, viz.: (1) breach of contract on the part of the defendant to carry plaintiff safely to his destination ; (2) assault; (3) slander; and (4) malicious prosecution. The plaintiff, upon the trial, was allowed to show, and the jury found in his favor upon disputed evidence, that he duly paid his fare as a passenger on defendant’s train; that he was roughly and improperly ejected therefrom by defendant’s servants; that he was arrested, taken through the streets as a prisoner, and imprisoned overnight, under a false and malicious charge, made against him, without probable cause, by defendant’s servants; and that he was honorably acquitted and discharged after a hearing before the police magistrate. The particular testimony tending to show the assault in the car and the slanderous abuse also in the ear may be taken as offered in support of the cause of action for breach of contract; but the evidence in support of the cause of action for malicious prosecution was improperly allowed, as the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction over such causes of action. Mun. Ct. Act, § 1, subd. 14. It is impossible to say how much damage the jury allowed for the breach of contract and how much for the malicious prosecution, and a new trial is necessary.

Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Seabury, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.  