The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-03-10


~ssr. r.. sRiohnss6a County.
MRA BURRExE 00URF- CHAxBERs.
Before Hon. Judge Ingrsham.
JoS Wolfe US. he Swpsrvisovs n Ne County Of Rich
sosd-Ihe plaintiff claims 70 recover damages for
property destroyed by mob In the county Of Richmond
Tho complainant that he the owner Of goods
and chaeh In the town Of westned that riot was there
committed by certain persons and The dwelling house in
which such goods chatels then were was ret fire
by mob, and the property Of the plaintiff thereby
destroyed. The complaint further that the plain
til was not appsed Of any threat attempt 10 destroy
iDjure his property. The defendants demur 70 the
complaint for the that dees appear tho face Of
the complaint that the does not state facts sufficient
to constitute cause Of action. This action Is brought
under the statute Of 1885, ch los which provides that
any city county sha be liable to action by in be-
half Of the party whose property was thus destroyed or
injured for the damages sustained by reason thereof
II 10 necessary for the plaintiff 10 in the
plant that he old not aid In assist permit the destruc
on Of the property He AYERS that the act was done by
the mob and there nothing In the statute which requires
aDy other averment is never necessary In complaint
for injury 10 the person or to property to aver that the act
did occur through the negligence or q the
plaintiff That may be shown by the defendant "a ger
Of defence upon the trial, but II Is not necoI be
sverred in the complaint, any more than II Aary
upon the Trial for the plaintiff In making hB gW prove
the first instance that he not at fault either through
careesenees negligence The defendant prove II,
END if any proof OF that character offered tho plaintiff
then and before required 10 show that he free
FRI such fault The objection Thai the OF 1855
passed by three fifth vote cannot be taken on this
plant that any such objection exists. the complaint
AYERS that the statute was passed by the Lsgisla
turs In the sbssnce Of any proof on that subject we
only objection remaining Is 70 the constitutionaly
Of the act Of 1855 This does not involve any question as
to the power and authority as 10 the liability and duty
Of the Sheriff That he has power suppress RIOTS and for
that purpose TO the whole force the county be
doubted. But the action Ii not founded any injury
arising from the act OF the Sheriff. Is the reverse. II
rests entirely ION the acts Of those engaged in the riot
biy gect OF the proper authorities TO maintain the
peace by preventing or suppressng riots Upon the same
principle acts Of negligence by corpor ste authorities
the grounds OF action by individuals whose property Ia
damaged by consequence Of such negligence, when
II the injury had arisen from the acts themselves, pro
pe no. no c.magea coH.a &c seGoves s,a tne
May against Lloyd Il Seden 36e), the Mayor,
against Huston Is sslden, 1885, others cited in those
cases are in point to show that ouch actions be main
tanned for negligence causing damage And Wilson against
the MAY or &c. DEMO- 505), important TO show that
by acts legally done, although injurious, liability
The statute X S. 1884 provides for bringing actions
against county In the name Of the Board OF Superv-
do not understand the defen jants Directing
The mode In which the action brought but 70 power
Of the Legislature 10 impose upon the county this liability
under the act II 1855. suppose It must be conceded
legal OF illesai aud to impose liability for damages to
party injured in al in which there restriction
contained in The fundamental law which limits their
powers. the constitution does not afx limit by pre-
scribpg cages Ia which they may not act they have full
authority TO hgslate In regard thereto The defendants
however, contend that such prohibition contained in
the LIST section OF the 10Th article OF the constitution
which says"T The county shall never be made
Bile for he acts Of the Sheriff" Tho true construction
OF this cause that for anything by the Sherir
in the discharge Of his official duties, the county should
not be liable. Ii IL had been averred that the Sheriff.
willie attempting TO preserve the peace, illegally took
Possession Of and destroyed the plaintiffs property
this pIovson would apply and would project the county
from liability In the present case, no Eever, do not
derstsnd this action 10 DO founded any claim for
damages arising out of the acts o. the Sheriff The statute
Of 1866 does not place the responsibility either the act
Of the Sheriff. the defendant supposes the
ect Of the Sheriff 10 act Tne only ground of liability Is
the existence Of mob riot In the county and the
destruction Of property by such mob. The proprety of
changing The people Of counties with the consequences Of
iiots within the county is apparent Is not to punish
them for the acts negligence the Sheriff. but for their
own conduct in Uniting riots to take place. The Sheriff
could 60 nothing without the aid Of the people, Il be-
comes matter Of interest to them TO prevent and sup
press riots the statute makes them responsible for the
damages proceeding ,herefrom. and, although the
Sheriff the ocer to whom the authority is specially
committed there other officers the county who
With him, have authority TO arrest all offenders against
the county liable for tae acts Of the Sheriff than for
other officers The provision in the statute which requires
notice 10 be given TO the Sheriff in the county requires
the Ike notice 10 be given to the Mayor Of city, no
part Of the statute contempaies the liability limited by
the neglect Of the Sheriff to discharge his duties The in
ability Of the Sheriff to discharge hts duties The inabl
~ OF the Sheriff to do what is necessary suprcss riot
no more defence TO this action than his neglect would
be ground for IT, The liability is irrespective Of either
and imposed for the destruction Of property by the riot
whether the Sheriff has done all in hs power or not 70
prevent T. This notice 10 not for the purpose Of fixing
any liability on the Sheriff The party whose property
sanction or permit the injury to be dore where he
knows Of the intended injury he required TO use ali
that he has used such diligence he is required
that he has applied to the Sheriff Of the county for proec
ton The notice to the Sheriff. 80 far the plaintiffs
rights are involved ID intended for other purpose The
plaintiff % entitled to judgment on the demurrer with
leave 10 defendants 70 answer, on payment Of oosts