Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-11-20
INTERESTING JUDICIAL OPINION.

During the present session Of the United States Circuit
Court held in the city Of Baltimore trial was had OF
the case of John H. Duffy The Mayor and Gin Council
Of baltimore in which action brought to recover the
value Of property alleged have been DESTROYED by
mob in the year 1849.
The following is copy Of prayer fled by the coun-
sci for the defence which Chief Justice RooER IA
NEr responded by giving the jury the suboined bill Of
instructions containing his opinions and decisions on the
several important points of law involved in the case
The defendant by his counsel, prays the Court to in
struct the jury Us follows:
81 That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this
case for damages he may have injury
or destruction Of property spoken of by the Witnesses
unless they shall find from the evidence in the that
such injury destruction was occasioned by rotous
or tumultuous assemblage Of people.
That even II they shall find that there injury
or destruction Of the property of the plaintiff and that
the same was occasioned by riotans tumutuous
recover In shr cass uniess sy sb- f-s- the
evidence in the that the authores Of the city Of
Baltimore had good reason to believe, prior such in
jury OF destruction OF property that such riot umu
tuous assembage was about take place. had notice
OF Its existence in time prevent such injury or estruc
ton nor then, they shall find from the evidence that
the civil authorities used all reasonable diligence and
the powers entrusted them for the preven
non OF the same so far it necessary to exercise
such powers"
The instructions of the Court were as follows:
In ORDER TO enable the plaintiff to recover it must be
shown by the evidence that the property destroyed by
rotous and tumultuOus assemblage strong to be
sisted without the aid Of the civil authority.
o. II must appear also that the city authorities had
reasonable ground for believing that such assembag
too strong to be resisted without their had taken place
or was about to take place. and did reasonable
diligence to suppress or prevent it.
3D. And If it was destroyed by a tumultuous riot
GUS meeting yet the Corporation is responsible if
dgent inquiry made after notice that danger was
apprehended and reasonable precautions taken by the
authorities to guard against such riotous and tumutu
Gus assemblage.
o. Nor are they answerable if the injury was done
upon sudden excitement which the civil authorities had
not good reason to apprehend from the suddenness
had not time to prevent.
30 The city authorities not bound to place off,
GERS or guards to prevent respasses and depredatons
and are not liable for any destruction unless committed
by riotous and tumultuous assembly strong to be
resisted without the aid of the civil authority and which
tumutuous assemblage the civil authorities had
able ground to believe would take place for the purpose
Of destroying the property"
The property alleged to have been destroyed was
rope-walk and some other buildings situated the
eastern limits of the city. The of damages for
the recovery of which action brought $50 900,
with interest Messrs g. NJ Gill and John Nelson were
counsel for the plaintiff Messrs VIM Schley and Archer
Ropes for the defendants.-4mercan