in the State of New York, and have

is a resident of
resided there with my said husband for

II. I was married to said defendant on the

On or about the

day of

years past.56
day of

and am now

years of age.

III. [Aliege acts of cruelty complained of, for instance thus:] 19 at the house of his cousin, M. N., in after we had retired for the night, he began abusing me about my folks at home; we were in bed at. the time, and I was crying and in great distress, whereupon my said husband assaulted me violently, seized me by my hair, and knocked my head with great force and cruelty against the wall of the room, against which the bed stood, thereby inflicting on me severe pain.

IV. [State other details of cruelty in the same manner, continuing:] In consequence of such cruel conduct and ill treatment I have been completely broken in spirit, my physical health has been much impaired and my nervous system disarranged, and I have suffered great mental anguish and physical pain by reason thereof [and I verily believe that my husband will kill me if he is allowed an opportunity to do so.].

FORM No. 930.

Injury to real property by withholding possession.57

[Substitute in Form 927.]-II. That A. K. M. was, on or about the day of 19 in the quiet and peaceable

possession of certain lands and tenements situate in

the county of

in

and described as follows [description]. That said A. K. M. held said premises by virtue of a lease from the firm of M. M., former owners of said premises, which lease was dated 19 and was for the term of one year, with

rents payable thereon the

of each and every month, and that said M. continued in possession of said premises after the expiration of said lease.

chased the said premises from M. & M., and that on or about

56 May also allege facts as to husband's financial resources or "faculties;" but if apprehended evasion of the jurisdiction is the ground of applying for arrest, take order of court. See Form 947.

57 N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 549, subd. 2. This Form is sustained in Cummer

v. Moyer, 57 Mich. 375, 24 N. W. Rep. 110, against the objection that the affidavit stated a different case from the complaint, in that the affidavit failed to specify the particulars of damages, and to refer to the statute under which plaintiff was entitled to have the actual damages trebled.

19

, this deponent had a conversation with said M. in regard to the time he (said M.) expected to require said premises, and that said M. then stated that he wanted to remain until then ensuing, and an arrangement was then made between deponent and said M. for said premises to be held by M. until the said 19 ; that on or about the

of

of

19 the said M. came to deponent's store and wanted to make a further arrangement, and stated that his business would detain him longer than he expected, and he (said M.) wanted the privilege of remaining until then following, which

arrangements were agreed to by deponent.

ments were made between said M. and deponent, whereby said M. was to remain in said premises until the day of

of

19 and that said M. then and there agreed with deponent to get out" on the that said M. at that time wanted to rent the premises for a longer time, but the deponent then and there refused to let said M. have the premises for any longer time, and told said M. that he must "get out " by the

of

V. That in all the said transactions deponent acted as the agent of said A. A. C., and all the arrangements made between her and said M. were made through deponent as such agent, and said M. was cognizant of such agency.

of

VI. That said M. did not vacate the premises on the

day of

day of

day

and refused to vacate the same at all times after said

accepted any rent for said premises, or in any manner recognized said M. as her tenant.

day of

VII. That said A. A. C., after the said

19 commenced an action before S. F. L., a justice of the peace for for the recovery of the possession of said premises which said action was appealed to the

for

Court

County, and on the trial of said appeal, and on the day of , 19, the said A. A. C. recovered a judgment, then and there rendered and entered in said court, for the possession of said property, and for the restitution thereof, as more fully appears by the records of said court.

VIII. That said M. remained in possession of said premises continually from the said 19 until on or

19. Deponent further says, that

he verily believes that upon the aforesaid facts the said A. A. C. has a good cause of action against the said A. K. M. in an action

for trespass on the case, and the said A. A. C. claims damages in the sum of

dollars.58

FORM No. 931.

Injury to personal property; by embezzlement,59 [Substitute in Form 927.]—II. That on the

,

day of months,

19 and at other times within the past deponent delivered to E. S., the defendant, about $20,000 in gold certificates, the property of said D. S. & Co., which the said defendant knew to be said property, and which she has converted to her own use, and refuses to surrender to the plaintiffs. That said defendant has stated to him personally that she is about to remove from the State of New York; and that she induced and persuaded the deponent to take the above moneys from his employers and give it to her, and has willfully received and converted the same, in fraud of said plaintiffs, and with the expressed intention of fleeing the country with deponent.

FORM No. 932.

Another Form; obtaining money on forged securities.60 [Substitute in Form 927.] — II. That the defendant at 19 obtained from plaintiff

on the

day of

dollars, under the following circumstances:

At said time and place the defendant exhibited to deponent a document, the original of which will be exhibited to the justice to

58 Under the New York Code it is best to add such allegations as show that the wrong is willful, and not a mere technical tort resulting from a difference of opinion as to the right of the parties.

It was formerly held that ejectment to try title was not an action for an injury to property. Merritt v. Carpenter, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 285, 3 Keyes, 142. The better opinion now is that it is, under the present statute, if the wrong is willful. Welch v. Winterburn, 14 Hun, 518.

See

59 Sustained by N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., 549, subds. 2, 3, 4; Duncan v. Katen, 64 N. Y. 625, aff'g 6 Hun, 1.

"Injury to property" includes, by N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 3343, subd. 10, "any actionable act whereby the estate of another is lessened, other than a personal injury or breach of contract." Hence it includes an embezzlement (Northern R. R. Co. v. Car

pentier, 3 Abb. Pr. 259, 13 How. Pr. 222), the boycotting of business (Old Dominion St. Co. v. McKenna, 18 Abb. N. C. 262), a purchase by fraud (Muser v. Miller, 12 Abb. N. Č. 305), or inducing advances on forged bills (Bogart v. Dart, 25 Hun, 395), and the like. This affidavit and the next therefore justify arrest even of a female, as showing a willful injury to property. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 553. They would therefore equally justify attachment, under id., § 635. See, also, Weiller v. Schrieber, 11 Abb. N. C. 175.

Faris v. Peck, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 55, 2 Sweeny, 689, sustains arrest for obtaining property of another through identity of name, and disposing of it.

60 Sustained by Eypert v. Bolenius, 2 Abb. N. C. 193; S. P., Bogart v. Dart, 25 Hun, 395, and N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 549, subds. 2, 3, 4. See note 59 to preceding Form.

whom application will be made in this action for an order to arrest defendant, and will be produced on the trial of this action; said document purported to be, and was then and there by the defendant represented to plaintiff to be a first mortgage bond of the L. & F. Railroad Company, State of M., for the sum of $1,000 and the other of $500, and the principal payable and the interest payable of each year, the payment of the principal and coupons of said bonds guaranteed by the M. C. Railroad Company, in pursuance of a contract dated 18, said guaranty purporting to be signed by J. C., treasurer of the said M. C. Railroad Company.

and

year until the principal became due.

had attached to it coupons of every

and

Said bond purported to be signed by D. W. C., treasurer, H. M. P., president, and R. C., G. E., B. J. and J. W. P., trustees.

III. At said time and place said defendant stated to plaintiff that said bond was genuine and of the value it purported to be, asked the plaintiff to loan to her said dollars for the payment of a judgment then pressing upon her, and stated to deponent that if deponent would advance said money and extricate her from her trouble arising out of said judgment, she would deposit said bond and coupons, and that deponent should collect such coupons as they became due, and then and there delivered to this defendant said bond and coupons, and made, executed and delivered to this deponent an instrument of which the following is a copy, and the original of which this deponent is ready to produce.

And then and there said defendant also asked this deponent, as a further security, to take an assignment of the judgment to be paid by said moneys.

This deponent believed said representations of said defendant, and upon the faith thereof advanced to defendant said

dollars, and received said bond and authorization.

Said representations of said defendant were wholly false, said bond was a forgery and counterfeit, and was uttered by said defendant falsely, fraudulently and feloniously.

The coupon thereto attached for $30, payable 19 " was by this deponent presented to said company for payment, and pronounced a forgery.

FORM No. 933.

Conversion.61

19

[Substitute in Form 927.] - That on the

day of

said Y. Z., being a note broker, doing business at offered to deponeat to find a purchaser for a promissory note for dollars, made by one M. N., of payable to the order

of deponent.

That at the request of said Y. Z. deponent delivered to him the said note in trust to sell the same for cash, as a broker aforesaid, and to return the proceeds thereof immediately to this deponent, and for no other purpose whatever.

That deponent did not sell the said note to said Y. Z., nor did he deliver it to him in any other manner, or for any other purpose, than as a broker aforesaid.

That the said Y. Z. informed deponent on the same day that he had pledged the said note for dollars, but refused to

state to whom he had pledged it.

That the said Y. Z. has neglected and refused to return said note to deponent, or to pay any part of its amount to deponent, but has converted the same to his own use.

FORM No. 934.

Breach of promise to marry.62

[Substitute in Form 927.]—II. That on the

at

day of in consideration that the plaintiff who was then unmarried, would, at the request of the defendant, marry him, on request, the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff within a reasonable time [or, on the

on request].

day of

day of

— or,

That the plaintiff, confiding in said promise, has always since remained and now is ready and willing to marry the defendant. That the defendant [on or about the refused to marry the plaintiff, although a reasonable time has elapsed. [Here add details, such as that he has married a third person.]

[The affidavits may be advantageously amplified, showing defendant's social and financial position, publicity of engagement, humiliating circumstances under which engagement was broken, etc.]

61 See, for other cases involving the sufficiency of the affidavits to make out a conversion, O'Connor v. Jones, 65 Hun, 48, 19 N. Y. Supp. 725; Person v. Civer, 29 How. Pr. 432. A complaint showing above facts need

not allege that defendant received the proceeds of the note (if discounted) in a fiduciary capacity. Moffatt v. Fulton, 132 N. Y. 507.

62 N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 549, subd. 2.