Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-04-14
WARREN CORRESPONDENTS.
Court Of Common Picas-Important cases -
quor tri0is-- Charge Of Judge Hoffman N ne
Bristol case-7Re Resut-Rain

| WARREN, April llthi l6b9
| EDrroR DAILY LEADER The Court Of Com.
mon Pleas for our county adjourned on Friday
last after session Of nearly five weeks. A
large amount of business was disposed of,and il
has been tedious and laborious term to Jurors,
Witnesses, Lawyers and Judge, and withal eT-
pensive to the County and suitors. The law
Of last winter which has forever excluded from
the Jury box the professional jurors has added
something to the expenses of our Courts, for II
has been found necessary to have two full pam
nels in attendance during most of the term
The law has, however, done good thing in ex-
oluding from the box class Of men who attend
Courts for the money they can make out Of the
business, and too often render verdicts under
the influence Of prejudice, or feeling Of favor or
dislavor for one or another of the parties who
come before them; and thus do great wrong
TO the parties in interest as well as outrage
justice and right. The expense, therefore,
seems to be more than compensated
Several cases have been tried at this term
of more than usual interest. A case brought
by young woman from Mercer county, Pa,
against young man, resident of Vernon, in
this county, for breach of promise and seduc-
ton came on for trial aud excited much interest
The defendant came into Court denying the
contract, but admitting the seduction, and at
tempted to blacken the character of the plain
tiff but the jury did not believe him and requir-
cd him to pay the small sum of $500 90 for a
violation Of his contract, and the prophecies of
domestic and social life Il is the largest YER
dict have ever known returned in this class Of
cases in this county. Ii was wholesome one
and cannot fail 10 have great influence. An
other case which has excited general and local
interest was the Bristol Liquor case. About
one year ago certain ladies of Bristol turned
out and entered the Grocery of ID. Q. Miller,
when some Of their number held Mr.. Miller
while others broken open the casks and spilled
his liquors, and then wound up with burning
the old man in efhgy. He caused their arrest
at the time for riot, but the pressure was 80
great that the Magistrate discharged the fair
rioters. He then sued the ladies and the
husbands of the married ones in the Court
of Common Pleas for the trespass. Five
of the defendants were women and girls
In their answer they undertook to Justify on the
ground that the grocery was a nuisance, and
they did no more than was necessary TO abate
it. To this answer the plaintiff demurred and
at the October Term of the Court the demurrer
was sustained-the Court holding that the facts
did not make justification in law. At this term
the case came on for trial without answer or
defense upon an inquiry of damages. The
plaintiff proved the injury and extent of his
special damages aud rested. The defendants
then were permitted to go into proof of the cir
cumstances under which the tre5pass was com
mited-the selling of liquor contrary to law
and the extent to which Miller had carried it
on, by way of mitigating damages After clos
ing the testimony on both sides, and the argu-
ments of Counsel his Honor, Judge Hoffman,
charged the jury upon the law of the case, in
charge ofan hour. The points of the charge
! were
First. That the defendants were standing
before them coniessing the trespass; and the
plaintiff was entitled to recover actual damages
for all his property destroyed by the defend
dants and if there were any circumstances
which showed malice, anger or that they will
fully committed the wrong, or committed any
acts of indignity to the plaintiff which would
outrage his feelings, then the jury should re-
turn exemplary damages-such damages as
would serve punishment to the defendants
Second. If the jury should find that the
plaintiff had been persistently and habitually
selling liquor in violation of law, and thereby
was conuptng the habits and the morals ofthe
young OF the neghborhoOd, and vas doing per
manent injury to society-was in fact keeping
a public nuisance there-and the defendants
went there for the purpose of stopping the sale
of liquor, and abating the nuisance, under the
mistaken belief that they had the right to do so,
that then the jury-could only render a verdict
for the actual damages the plaintiff had sustain
ed-that is the actual value of all the property
they had injured or destroyed
Third That if the jury should find that the
| plaintiff had been selling Liquor in his grocery
in violation of the Law so habimaly as to
make it a nuisance, the Defendants had a
right to abate it. They had a right to 90 into
his grocery and remain there and thus by their
personal presence restrain the sale or if the
! Plaintiff should set out his bottle they would
have a right to take hold of it anu return it to
its place, or they could take possession of his
liquors and remove them to place of safety if
they could restrain him in no other way; but
they could not legally destroy any property of
the Plaintiff in their laudable attempt to abate
| the supposed nuisance
Fourth and Finally The plaintiff could not
have any property in Liquor unless the same
had been inspected, and 'the inspectors brand
was upon the cask and if the jury found that the
liquor destroyed was not inspected, then they
| could not return any value for it, because the
plaintiff could not legally have any property
in it,
After receiving the charge the jury retired
and in short time returned into court with
verdict of One Dollar damages-the value of a
barrel destroyed by the defendants
The case excited great deal of interest -
Many of the Bristol ladies were in attendance,
and took their places in the Bar; and large
number Of the ladies' of Warren attended tue
court during the trial Crinoline overshadowed
the jury and usurped the place of the court and
drove the lawyers from their seats, and the fair
tresspassers received the sympathy of their sis
| teTs, while the counsel who stood up TO make |
their defence were encouraged to greater effort |
by the charming glances of bright eyes and the |
approving smiles of the ladies in attendance
Their counsel we're the same gentlemen who |
volunteered to defend them last summer when |
charged with the riot, with the addition of L. |
| G.. Jones, Esq, Of Hartford Messrs Tuttle, |
| Hutchns, Cox and jones' all made arguments !
TO the Jury for the defense Judge Birchard |
assisted by B. f. Curtss, and O. A. Harring- |
ton, Esqs., conducted the case on the part Of |
the Plaintiff
d. O. Miller was also indicted at this term |
for keeping grocery where liquor was sold |
in violation of law, and was tried, but the Jury |
could not agree.
Henry l.. Austin, of Bloomfield, was indict- |
ed for keeping tavern where liquor was sold |
in violation Of law, was tried, convicted and |
sentenced to pay fine of $50 and COSTS and |
be imprisoned 20 days in the Jail This tavern
was also ordered closed He is now undergo
ing the penalty of the law. j. r Mash, of
Mesopotamia was also indicted for the same
ofiense. He came in and plead guilty and
was fined, but in consideration of sickness the