The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-09

4
HEAVY VERDICT.
ArSn 7.-Ciement y. Barrett rs. Wm H. Stinemets and
Tios. ~ Faukno-This was action for assault and
battery The complainant in this case states that ON
the eth May. 1850 the defendants violently assaulted
and severely bruized and injured him without any just
cause provocaton. thereby rendering him unable to
attend to his business and mpairing his health 1t is
alleged that at about eleven O'Clock the evening Of
the eth Of May the defendants came. in company with
person named Flemmng. and the wife of the defend
ant Faulkner to the house No SO Broadway in this city
where the plaintiff who is practising physician then
boarded with his family that one Of the defendants IN
qured plaintiff stating that old friend had called
him. and requested him to come down to the rarlor;
that upon plaintiff 5 entering the room the defendants
without any provoeation commenced using threatening
insulting language towards the plaintiff and assaulted him
with personal violence that the defendant snemets gave
the plaintiff blow which broke the cartilage of his nose,
and then caught his head under his arm and repeatedly
inflicted severe bruises his face and head; Faulkner
also struck the plaintiff several blows with a cane and
with his fists. and kicked him in the region OF the left
kidney. and both of the defendants avowed their inen
ton taking the life Of the plaintiff it Is further alleged
by the force and violence this assault the plain
tiff wa rendered helpless his right eye severely bruised
and injured, deep inflicted his eyebrow,
which backened and closed his eye and impaired his
sight his left back and neck were also severely in
jursd and from which injuries he confined for sevc
raj days and to great trouble and expense aud
has been prevented from the eth Of May to the present
time. from attending to his professional practice, and
therefore claims damages to the amount Of $4,000.
On behalf of the defence il Is denied that the aggrava
ed assault complained Of committed; but it admit
ted that the deenan tswent TO the boarding house OF
the plaintiff in Broadway. where OF them inquired
for Mr. Barrett but not with premeditae design OF
committing any assault on him; the plaintiff came into
the parlor conversation ensued between him and the
defendant Faulkner and in consequence Of the great pro-
vocation given by Barrett in that conversation the
defendant stineinots admits that he slapped the
plaintiff in the face with his open hand. aud that
such treatment not for the purpose Of inhict
ing personal injury but solely ~ Offering him marks
Of indignty 1t IL further stated that Mr.. slime
quaned with the plaintiff (Barrett). Well with the
other defe ndant, (Faukner) that plaintiff IN the
habit Of attending professionally as physician. upon
the family Of Faulkner and stnemets. by invitation Of
plaintiff accompanied him several times in his visits to
faulkners; that in the middle Of October 1919 while
Barrett and stinemcts returning from Fauikncrs
called at faukners house few days previously to visit
his (fsulkners) father Elias W Faulkner; that upon
entering the paIor lac kissed the little daughter o the
defendant Faulkner. when Mrs Faulkner the wife Of de-
PENDANT Faulkner said to him in under tone Why do
you not kiss me-. and that he took notice OF the re-
mark that Mrs Faulkner followed him to the basement
and there closed the door and asked him Barrett,
tain improper questions: that Barrett by this convcra
ton with stinemots wished to infer that Mrs Faulkner
uncha-te and wished him to improper liberties
with her; sneMets knowing that the lady in the
habit of offering rfreshmcnt to her visiters said to him
Barrett that he attached too much importance to IT,
upon which Barrett said that Mrs r. had waited for him
till 10 o'clock that night at the Brooklyn ferry aud that
he failing to be there she called at his Office next
ing Other nsnuations, by Barrett respecting the
modesty of Mrs. Faulkner, alleged Witnesses were
produced for the plaintiff sbsantiatc the charge Of
assault aud Nr stewart then. behalf of the defend
ants, addressed the jury lie COUNSEL admitted that the
plaintiff had had good beating but that he was there,
present notwithstanding the casgatios. aud was not
killed 1aughtar) the defendants oxpoccd that the jury
would justify the punishment which had been inflicted
Barrett for the insult he had cast upon the defendant
faulkner's wife. aud that their verdict would be,
Served lin right IL for the plaintiff. that ii would
~ the smallest coin Ia the state. Adjourned.
Arm s-Tb.rc witnesses examined for the
defence the testimony II Mr. Faulkner not being sdnis
sable.
Mr. III = Allen summed up part a the plaintiff The
Judge then briefly charge. the Jury IL said that be-
yond doubt assault had been committed the Plain
tiff and assault too Il such aggra atcd character
expose his life 10 danger For such assault the
plaintiff has right "a ask damages for the injury hc has
sustained The only ground Of defence up /. that
there between the part, which
the conduct If the defendants aud that they acted under
the heat - passion II appeared that there differ
between them but whatever tly were they
such 60 justify this assault aud battery What
they they had right 20 the bousc of
the plaintiff and assail him the law does not permit
manito take the punishment into his hands, the de-
PENDANTS should have applied 10 the laws ~ their
try for redress Tor SANDER Tho jury would into
confederation the whole and say " there any
mitigating crcumstancos-th.y would -ay II there
anything In the interview between the PARTIES which
tended to excite the passions # the defendants The
amount Of damages Of lcft a. thcir iug.
ment
Verdict for plaintiff. 5000.
A poll demanded part y the dtfcDdaut. aud
Tia" jury were found unanimous