The Indianapolis daily herald., 1865-11-11
DARLINGTON AND CO.. LATE OF THE

CITY.
When the Supreme Cou ri of Indiana decided
in the case of GRIFyIs VS.. WILCOX. 2lst In
diana, that the section Of the act Of the I'd OF
March. 1863, exempting from liability any per-
son who committed outrsges upoL the citizens by
order of the President, that Court was denounced
without stint, because il would not sanction law
lsssness. military and mob tyranny. We take
the following from the Nashville Union:
We published. short time since, brief ar
ticle in regard To a decision by Judge Smalley.
in the United States Circuit Court for Vermont
al Rutland. The following article will give the
reader = more thorough understanding of the
points of the case:
AN IMPORTANT SUIT AND DECISION BY A UNITED
STATES COURT.
very interesting and important case has re-
Gently been tried ia the United States Circuit
Court for Vermont. held at Rutland, before
Judge Smalley. IL was an action for assault
and battery and false imprisonment, brought by
Hiram Walker, manufacturer of Burlington.
against q. X Crane, Assistant Provost Marshal
OF the United States for the First Congressional
District OF Vermont. The trial is reported at
length in the Montpelier Argus and Patriot,
from which We condense the material facts in the
case.
The plaintiff went to Rutland in August, 1863
for the purpose of existing q substitute for a
young man in his employment. He made ar
Engagements with one Norton, who was on his
way TO Rutland with three Canadians to be en-
listed, To furnish him with one Of those men.
Norton made a contract with the Selectmen Of
Rutland, for the other two men. Upon going
up to the Provost Marshal's office to pay of bis
man, the plaintiff was rudely accosted, charged
with being a substitute broker. and thrust down
stairs. Some words ensued, when defendant ar
rested plaintiff, and confined him in Rutland jail,
in the common room with Migrants and criminals,
but shortly after he taken out by . squad OF
soldiers aud discharged. The defendant was
subsequently, sent tor to 60 to the Provost's
Office TO pay his man. which he did.
The defendant put In the order Of the Provost
Marshal General of Vermont to exclude from his
Office bounty and substitute brokers. he also
put in evidence for the purpose of showing that
plaintiff negotiated with the selectmen of Rut-
land for the sale OF three Canadians; that be Was
interested in the contract which had been made
with them that they closed the contract with
him and Norton. jointly. and that plaintiff did
not deny he was . bounty broker Defendant
also put in evidence an opinion of William Whit
ing. Solicitor of the War Department., giving a
construction TO certain sections in the Enroll
ment Act, which had been published by the De-
partment. in q circular form, for the guidance of
Provost Marshals.
The plaintiff put in evidence TO show that be
was not and never had been in any way substi-
sute broker, and that he had no interest what
ever in the contract with the Canadians. except
TO obtain one as q substitute.
liz was claimed for the defendant that be was
justified under the orders he had received, in ex-
GLIDING the plaintiff from the Office, and the en-
trance to it. on account Of his being a substitute
broker; that the plaintiff vas guilty of an offence
against the Enrolment Act, in threatening and
obstructiAg an officer of the Government; ano
that the defendant Was justified in summsrily
arresting him under a section of the Act of March
3, 1868. which is as follows
And be it further enacted, That any order OF
the President. or under his authority made at
any time during the existence of this rebellion,
shall be defense in all courts to any action or
prosecution. civil or criminal, pending or to be
commenced for any search. seizure. arrest or i'm
prisonment, made, done or committed, or acts
omitted to be done under and by virtue Of such
order, or under color of any act of Congress:
and such defense may be made by special plea.
or under the general issue.
The defendant further claimed that pending
the rebellion. the military authority was para
mount TO the civil, and that summary arrests
under martial law were Justlnaole ana proper.
and constituted no cause of action.
Judge Smalley, in charging the jury, ruled
that the section in the act of March 3, 1863.
above quoted. vas In violation OF the Constitu-
ton of the United States. and afforded no pro-
lection for acts done under the authority of that
section; that the language used by the plaintiff
did DO, amour, TO any ofense against the En-
rollment Act; also. that the opinion of Whiting
in regard to the construction Of that act was
neous: and that martial lav not having been de-
clsred in Vermont, the civil Law remained in full
force, and vas not subordinate 10 military au-
thority. he submitted the question Of damages
to the jury, ruling that il defendant honestly be
heved and had reason 10 believe. that the
plaintiff Was a substitute broker. and came within
the effect of the order 90 exclude persons of that
description, IL should 20 10 mitigation OF dam
ages even If the fact should be found be other
wise.
The Jury. after a short absence, retired a YER.
dict FOE the plaintiff of 81 .ooe.