
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Lovell, Appellant.
    (County Court, Oneida County,
    November, 1897.)
    Village Law of 1897 — Powers of justices of the peace in cases of mis- • demeanor — Cruelty to animals.
    The provisions of thex Village Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 414, § 182) are not designed to take away from a justice of the peace his jurisdiction over misdemeanors; and, although an incorporated village has not, under the provisions of section 50 of the act, established the office of police justice of the village, a justice of the. peace of the town, in which the village is situated, has jurisdiction to hear and determine a charge of cruelty to animals, where the offense was committed within the corporate limits of the village.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment of conviction rendered by E. S. Hamlin, a justice of the peáce of the town of Augusta, convicting defendant of cruelty to animals. The offense was committed within the corporate limits of the incorporated village of Oriskany Falls. That village is in the town of Augusta, in this county, and the office of police justice has not been established therein. -
    L. P. Fuess, for appellant.
    G. S. Klock, district attorney, and C. M. Wickwire, for respondent.
   Dunmore, J.

The defendant’s contention is that the provision of the Village Law (§ 182, chap. 414 of the Laws of 1897), which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the police justice of an incorporated village to hear, üy and determine charges of misdemeanor committed within such village, etc., takes away the jurisdiction of any justice of the peace of the town in which the village is located, to hear, try and determine such charges of misdemeanor. Defendant contends that this is so even if the office of police jusr tice has not been established in such village. He contends that until proceedings are taken pursuant to section 50 of said law to establish the office of police justice, and such officer elected dr appointed, there is'no way provided by law for the punishment of misdemeanors committed in such village.

I do not so construe the statute.

Section 50 provides that a village may establish the office of police justice by adopting a proposition therefor. It also provides that a village in which the office has been established may abolish such office at an annual election. The statute, therefore, makes it optional with a village whether it will or will not have the office of police justice. The provision (§ 182) which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the police justice of the village clearly means that when there is such an office created in a village, the incumbent shall have exclusive jurisdiction, etc. It does not mean that exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon a police justice when there is none, and when there is no such office in existence. •

The defendant asks us to hold that this statute has taken the jurisdiction from the justice of the peace of the town of Augusta to hear and' determine charges of misdemeanor committed within the village of Oriskany Palls and placed it no where. Such a construction would be absurd. In construing statutes, the legislative purpose and object aimed at are to be borne in mind, and language susceptible of more than one construction is to receive that which will bring it into harmony with such object and purpose rather than that which will tend to defeat it. 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 319, and cases cited.

It is the object of all interpretation and construction of statutes to ascertain the intention of the law makers. People ex rel. Twenty-third St. R. R. Co. v. Comrs. of Taxes, 95 N. Y. 558.

A construction of a statute which leads to an absurd consequence must always be avoided, as an absurd purpose is not to be attributed to the law makers. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 370.

There is a presumption against an intention on the part of the legislature to oust courts of their jurisdiction, and any. construction leading to such a result is to be avoided if possible. 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 353, and cases cited.

These statutes were enacted to provide a way to punish offenders, and to construe the statutes in such a way as to defeat their enforcement in the village of Oriskany Falls is to construe them contrary to the purpose and intent of the legislature. They are not necessarily in conflict, and should be so construed as to give full force to them both.

For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that until the office of-police justice is established in the village of Oriskany Falls, any justice of the peace of the town of Augusta has jurisdiction to hear, try and determine charges of misdemeanor committed in said village. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  