Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1865-03-28
A Wholesome Verdict.



ants on the plaintiff in the fall Of 1862 II APP
peared on trial that the defendants, with Others
to the number Of fifty or sixty, were members OF
Capt WilderS company of nine months men,
raised in the summer of 1862 in Waitsfeld and
vicinity. One day Just previous to this companys
leaving for the war, and after they had been
dismissed on short furlough, they chose tenn
porary officers and organized for the purpose OF
visiting the plaintiff and compelling him to take
back some language they understood he had
used concerning them and also compelling
him to cheer the flag. They found Mr. Joslyn
peaceably at work in his field and they marched
him to his house. There they insisted on his
taking back the obnoxious words Mr. Joslyn
denied having uttered them. They then insisted
on his cheering the flag. Mr.. Joslyn refused to
do this on compulsion. The defendants, after
some further parlcy, beat open the door of Mr..
j. s house, broke his windows, tore bis clothes
nearly off from MIN, and rode him on u rail.
1t appeared in evid enco that Mr. j was an
abolitionist, and had been for many years, that
he believed the constitution projected slavery
and was therefore pro-sayery constitution, that
he had no confidence in Gen. Mcclellan and
thought President Lincoln too slow, and that he
had not hesitated to avow these sentiments. 1t
was claimed by the defendants that be had, in
addition to this, discouraged enlstments, though
it was Admitted that he had voted for the town
bounty, that bis wife was at the time of the as
sault at work making clothes for soldiers, and
that be mad opened his house to l)dgc members
of this company. 1t was further claimed by
defendants, that Mr.. J had said on former oc-
casion that bad meat and butter were good
enough for soldiers. The evidence on that point
showed that, when some one was complaining
of the bad meat and butter which it was said
these recruits were fed upon at the hotel Mr..
J. said they might have to eat worse than that
before they got home, adding soue story of the
hard fare which soldiers in other countries some
times were compelled to submit to- The defend.
ants claimed that this was said as expressing a
wish that these soldiers might be compelled to
subsiSt on q similar unwholesome dict, while the
! plaintiff insisted that he meant nothing by it
further than that it was not certain that their
food in the army would always be as good as at
the hotel There was considerable contradictory
testimony on minor points in the case, and there
was evidence that there was mixed % somewhat
with this affair an old noighborhood Quarre
which had no connection with the state of tho
country. 1t was also proved that several persons,
who were at Mr., Joslyn's house demonstrated at
the time with The defendants and the Others who
were OF the assaulting company and told then
that Mr. j. was's loyal man
The counsel for the plaintiff were Messrs.
Clough, and Redfeld and Gleason. Messrs.
Dillingham; and Durant were counsel for defend
ants. The argument made by Mr.. Dillingham;
for the defence was exceedingly Ingenious, elo-
quent and effective, urging that the defendants
believed the plaintiff was dsloyal had used
insulting language concerning them and was
hostile 10 his country, aud that they were there
fore in great measure excused for riding him
on rail because he wouldn't cheer the FAC.
Mr.. Dillingham; admitted the legal liability of
his clients, but asked the jury to consider all
the circumstances and give as small q verdict as
their conscienccs would permit them 20.
Mr.. Redfelds closing address for the plain.
tiif was, undoubtedly, one of his most forcible
efforts, and as a mo tier Of argument left no
standing ground for the defence; and we almost
fancied we we're listening to him as be was when,
on the same platform with Charles Sumner and
Charles Francis Adams in old Free Soil times
he battlod for freedom OF speech and the rights
of man. His client being a n abolltionist, an d
standing in 1862 on the anti-slaycry question
where the government stands now, gave him an
excellent opportunity % enforce the value of
free speech.
The charge OF Judge Peck was limited to the
law OF the case, and was just what ought to be
said from the bench in such cause. lie told
the jury that the defendants had shown nothing
that constituted legal defence of their conduct
that all the evidence might, however, be taken
into account in fixing the amount Of damages.
which was wholly for them to determine : but
that they must consider that no man or body of
men had any right to violently and without law
redress wrongs whether real or fancied.
The jury after an absence of two hours re-
turned verdict for plaintiff for $3.50, and hi,
costs This verdict was satisfactory to the plain.
till, and without being any larger than the az
grayated nature Of the assault and battery fully
warranted, was yet large enough to admonsh
those who wish to encourage mob violence of
any sort, that courts aud juries yet remain to
administer the laws OF the land NTH Just respect
to the rights of person, of property, and Of
freedom, which have been the boast Of cur free
nstitu ions,
We have thus, at considerable length, given
the principal features of this case, bccaus. the
principle involved in it is not only important,
hut vital to the secnrityot property, liberty and
lite. No mans rights ale safe, no government
is secure from anarchy, where the mob are al
lowed with inpunity and under the pretext Of
reforming mems opinions or restraining them
IN The lawful enjoyment and expression Of them,
to invade the home of the citizen and outrage
he person And the court and jury in this
case have performed 40 unusually valuable ser
wee in aid cl law and order, by holding to a
gtrirt reanOnsih1i,v fo, ,bcir n,.lay6l -. Al