The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1865-11-07

-
We published, a short time since, brief /
article in regard to q decision by Judge |
smalley, in the United States Circuit Court |
for Vermont at Rutland. The following ar
ticle will give the resd,r 8 more thorough |
understanding Of the points Of the case
AZ uzPoETANr SUIT AND DECISION By A UNIFIED
STATES CoUBT-
Avery interesting and important case has
recently been tried in the United states
Circuit Court for Vermont. held at Rutland,
before Judge Smalley. Il was an action Tor
assault and battery and false imprisonment
brought bv lIirum Walker, manufacture
Of Darlington, against c. r. Creme, Assistant
Provost MRrshul Of the United States ior the
fret Congressional District OF Vermont The
tripl is reported az length in the Montpelier
ARGUS and Pc riot from which We Coudense
the material fscts in the case
The p aintif went 10 Euiland In Angus,
1893, for the purpose OF IN listing % suhstl-
tutc fsr q youug man in his employment.
lie made arrangement with one Norton,
who ives on his gay 10 Eu land with three
Comedians TO be enlisted, TO furnish him
with one Of those men. y on made q con-
tract vilh ,he sclrrtmcn Of Rutland, t.r the
I other TO men. Upon going up 10 the Pro-
! vost MHtshals Office 10 pay Oh his man, the
| plsintifI wss -udely accosted charged with
/ being suhsdtuie broker, aud thrust down
| -tsirs. Some words ensued, when defendant
arrested plaintiff and confined him IN Rus
| land iai In the common rom with vSgrants
and criminals, but sho thy after he wss
taken out bv a squad OF soldiers aud dis
| charged. The defendant was subsequently
| cent Cor 60 20 60 the ProNosIs C.iico 10 pay
| his man, which he aid.
The defendant put in the order of the
| Provo Marshal General Of Vermont 70
| exclude from his cliice bounty and suhsti-
tuis brokers. de alec put in evidence Cor
| the purt Gee Of showing that p aiRtih neRo-
| taicd with the selecimea 90 Eutlsnd for
/ tho sals o.! three Cansdisns; ihst he was
interested in the contract which had been
made with them that they closed the con-
/ tact vi h him and Norton, jointly, and thst
| plaintiff did not deny he was a bounty
broker Defendant also put Ia evidence
an opinion Of Wialiom whiting, Solicitor Of
the War Department, giving construction
60 certain sections o. the Enrolment Act,
which had been published by the Dspart-
meut, in q circular form, Tor the guidance ol
Provost Marshnls.
The plaintiff put in evidence 20 show that
, be was rot and never hsd been in auy way
r = substitute broker, and that he had no ia
tercst whstcver in the c ntract with the
Canadians, except 70 obtain one as a sub
J s,itate.
b IL was claimed fUr the defendant that he
/ was justified, unde. the orders he had re-
! ecived, in excluding the plaintiff from the
= | Office and the entrance to it, on sccOunt VI
; his being G substitute broker that the plain.
i tiff was guilty Of an otience against the en-
rollment act, in threatening sud obstrnctinr
! an officer al the Government; aud that ths
D defendant was justified in summarily AZ
r I resting him undcr section Of the act y
= March 3, 1903, which is as iollows
f" Aud be u further enacted, That any or
p der Of the President, 90 uAder his authority
made a. any time during the existence Q
n this rebellion, shall Be defence in all court
20 any action OF prosecution, civil or Grim
inal, pcuding or 10 he commenced for am
. search, seizure. arrest, OF imprisoument
u made, done, or committed, OF acts emitted q
a be dooe, under snd by virtue OF such oder
or under color Of any act Of Congress an,
such defence may be made by special plea
q % under the general issue"
p The defendant further claimed thst pcnd
l. ing the rebellion, the military authority
wea paramount 20 The civil, ana that sum
y mary arrests under martial law were justin
l. Sd and proper, aRd constituted no cause Q
l. action.
Judge SmAlley, in charging the Jury
v ruled that tho section in the act Of Marcel
p 3, 1865, above quoted, was IN olation o
B. tho Constitution Of the United STATES, an,
4 afforded no protection for acts done Unde
;ke authority Of that section; that th,
, language used BY the plaintiff did no
.. smount 10 any offence fgsinst the Enroll
A. meut Ac,; also that the opinion OF WHITING
in regard 10 the construction OF that act Wei
erroneous; and tha, martial law not hav nj
y been declared IN Vermont, The civil isw re
le maiued in Sail force. and wss not suh0rii
nate % military authority. lie subnlitte.
the question Of damages TO the Jury, ruling
r thai Il defendant honestly believed and IA,
y 7aason 10 believe, thei she plaintiff wss
,r substitute broker, and came within The eli
feet Of the order % exclude persons o, tha
y description. q should g. in mitigation o
a damage, even IL the fact should be ioun,
= g. be otherwise.
a The Jury, after short nhseuce, feiurne,
!. 8 verdict ior the plaintiff OF sl,Vus.