, 1863-09-14
SUPERIOR COURT IN BANG.
The Ten thousand Collar Verdict
Sustained.
Tnportsnt Decision In the Ease Of lamb rs.
K2SS,
IN1 1EREsT1NG RESUME OF THE
CASE,

Wilson and Van. II. Higgins sitting IL bane, tho
motion docket was called and ono O. two un!n,-
postant motions dispoeedof.
In tho afternoon Jcdeo Wilson delivered tho
opinion Of the Count on tho motion Tor new tssa9
III tho celebrated caee Of 1nnls ~, Ioss. A aoaa
remarkable faets connected with thls case have
attracted tho attention Of tho public, we glFe
Judge Wilson's decision bslow, peelse!ng II With
brief and explanatory statement,
1nDeeember 1859. younx man namea \, q.
1nnis. ~ho had bean In the employ Of Vim. II.
Ross Eco, as cashier. since 1855. len them for
the purpose Of Colug into business for himself,
He had previously, In the month Of September.
requested the eook-kecperso to mako up h!s account
with the asn. lnnls had = brother In bnslness at
Quincy, who purchased goods Of Ross' house. and
when the statement Of tho cashiers accom-. yas
made ont, he WAS surprised I'd ind that Instead of
the nrm owing him s16e, they had charged tho iu.
debtednces Of his brother to his account and
brought him Ii thels debt eerenty.soyen dollars
He protested against paying hIs brothers. debts
and informed the book.keeper- that he
wou!d take his payment out Of the hrst money
that passed through his hands. Ho did 20, and
coon after he lett he left the employ of the frm
Criminal prosecution was Commenced against him
BY the d1u, before Justice Mlllikln, who dis.
charged Innis, and declared that be had not been
guilty Of embexzlement.
An action for damages was commenced against
the Ross soon after, and verdict Of $500 OBJ
talDe in Irnfs' favor; but owing to come inform.
ality tho verdict WAS set aside. Subsequently
ax0ihet action was commenced by 1nnis, and
verdict Of 5000 obtained against the a1u. But
this verdict Has also set aside on account of an
cnoE In the Instructions Of the Court to the jury
On the third trial, which took place last June.
the jury doubled the amount OF the former ycr-
dict, snd, instead Of three or five, found verdict
OF ten thousand dollars of the largest fudc-
ntnts, III an action Of this KIND, ever rendered In
tie State Of nliEoia.
The defendant not satisfied with his experience
Of new trials etin demanded another investiga-
ton, ard fled his motion for that purpose,
the fate Of which is determined in tie drcisIon
given below: - s<
JUDGE WILSON'S DEc1sIoN.
The other Judges are very familiar with this
case as each Of them has tried It before. have
never tried 1t, and m, consequently, not 90 well
acqnainted with its details. The case has been
argued three times, on motion for new trial
before full bench. Three ve1dicts hare been
fcndettd for tie plnlnttT In ths case. At one
OF the former trials the motion to set aside the
verdict, " IL g1anted because it appeared that
one Of the counsel for the plaintiff was also
counsel against ono Of the jurors who tried tue
cause,
both parties. The verdict is very la=,e. At tdr
former trial. found great difficulty, as the ca5e
then stood, IN granting the motion for the new
granted appeared on the face Of the record aud We
thought it was due to the parttes the amount WAS
SO large, and 20 We voluntarily seized upon what
ground granted rev ttial. Now, the verdict Is |
twice If large as it was then then examined the
question n reiation to setting aside the verdict
the eKouhd Of excess OF damages.
In this class OF cases the Court eoonot set the
verdict aside because 1t Ia excessive, for the
ton thst t6s elements on ,ht whch TIE tery are to
1or the Court to Aay on an Of them that the
Selditt Ia too 1srgc- In a case Of this Kind not
I'd @ adequate * eompea:asos for III il he % has sui. M
hey may alse give punitive, come:
islmels tor the injnly conmittsd.' Now, "a ashat sh
amount u sufficient under the circrtustsnlcs for
these enda = aiwsys question Of fact, dependant
ate The paltlea wor1h because verdict thst
1ncans might 10 smap u othc. c,ecaEstaucea M B..
no pun1shmtn Mt Mt ~ Then the condition in HE
is aEothe5 element, sccauso the damage done is
ae oompested sa e sa;s II IL fs
ntc1:{ impossible fot tue Court to decide
sas sInek ae M ,s e. ,Sa
IN the drst instance aud asit now stands doubled
thiLS It is very large ycr4!et; ench ye.dictas
reeosd over with syeat care, sud beeoias Ia sone
what tumiliar with the details, / am not 20 much
eurptiscd ne was In The a.st fastance. and eau
hsxe given 20 large verdict in ease @ ofthis Eiud
The reaEons for new trial arc set forth In the
n 1s q IN Ws "a py
objections whatever being tken to the instruc-
uons. and think they are given with gscst fair
Sow the arit objte..on nrsed a. ainst the verdict
IL thet the defendant had probable causc. But
Whethes ,he facts proved n this case show that
for the Jury, aud Is submitted to the Jury By the
distinctions, and the jury could cot hare found
,ne maa gaffy uGlts they bad found under the
Jury we're instructed that If thcrc was probable
| cause, then, In the Fret tspsct Of the case, the
ea Ta msf e.nss apse @ 9e
the Instructions.
.f,t I'M se9Snd sS pon IT, tnst the II IN
Ct counsel after fully and faisy stating TO him the
Now, the jnry were Instructed that II this was
20, tht 4 they must Ind the defendant NOT guilty;
al1 Eot taly AID fat.y state ali the facts, they
for his on cviI and malicious purposes, that then
they mutt find the defendant guilty. Nov. both
1hrs e tS tn jury and the
1Tey hare fopnd either that he did not fully
and fairly state the fncte il he did, he did not
do 1t in any good faith. These are questions Of
fact oyef which the court has no cohtIol. This
question IVES argued hy counsel Oh both stles
With good deal Of ability. By oae, to show that
he Gid not etate tho facts fairly while the Other
the position Of ttfc1darts council on this point
be admitted, tt3l the jury have found the defend
att guilty and although counsel may believe that
the statement wag fairly made, still It was a
question Tor the Jury. md not for the Court. So
that that question, as presented to the Court and
argued. does not give the Court any ground for
disturbing the verdict For no objections were
made to tie INSTRUCTIONS md under the form In
which the Instructions were given, 1t was ques-
tIou for the Jury not for the Court.
thought the counsel made very strong at
nire different points, In regard to which no In
formation was given to Blackwell, while the
opposing council made q very strong argument
on the other side. But after al It was question
for the jn1y. InaEmuch. then, as we ,csn,t
set aside the verdict for excess, and As 1t Is Ad
mittel by both parties that the jury were properly
instructed. nud as they have found verdict or
guilty uuder tho Instructions, and AZ there fs cVi
dence in the case upon which the verdict can be
sustained, ! am utterly unable to discover any
ground for disturbing 1t.
So the motion 10 get aside was overruled- Couu-
sci for defendant appealed, and the bonds were
d1ed at s1a,olo.
Lawrence, Relief Fund.
The following contributions aro reported since
our last publication:
Ana RcEes R1Sv. re- 20 p Rt: Z :; doSdii:h s5 @
M AnHx$