Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-05-13
The Sturtcyant versus Allen Case !

Boston.
We published the result, s0me days since. Of
an Important tsisl in Boston, in which Sturtevant
was plaintiff and Allen defendant. The suit was
brought to recover damages from Allen for hav-
ing procured the arrest of Sturtevant on the
charge that be was a "secessionist and a traitor :"
We did not at the time have before us the charge
OF Judge IeELOw TO the Jury. A Boston paper
has since made an abstract of the charge, which
we deem Of sufficient, interest and importance to
transfer to our columns
The following was the cahrge of Judge Bige-
low, OF the supreme court OF Massachusetts, to
the Jury. in tho Important case of Sturtevsnt Va.
Allen, which occupied the attention of the court
FIVE DAYS.
1t will be remembered that this suit was
brought by Leonard Sturtevant, Of New Orleans
against A. KrAllen, Tor false arrest and impris
onment. Mr.. Spurtevant at the commeucemen
of the war did business in New Orleans, and
cam north, when he vas arrested and imprisoned
on charges of disloyalty preferred by Mr., Allen.
The action was brought 10 recover damages for
the alleged wrong and injury sustained by Mr.
Sturtevant.
Judge Bigelow. in charging the Jury, eau
toned them against entertaining political preju-
dices which the nature of the case might excite,
mtut some txDtduatlOUr OF tue import OF the
words "secessionist and traitor" and reviewe ed
the evidence bearing upon this part OF the case,
instructing the jury that, IL the words were found
TO have been spoken only to the detectives. Jones
and Wright. the plaintiffs would be entitled TO
damages only so far as character had been
damaged.
But the main reliance of the plaintiff was upon
the second count IN the declaration, which al
legged not only that the words we're spoken. but
n. H. .ftora1 nth a 1a.;,n - :,,o..
to cause the plaintiffs Imprisonment In this
connection the court found il necessary to define
treason. and this being done. the jury were in
formed that a person was guilty OF treason. how
ever little the aid and comfort he had given 20 the
enemy. IL the words alleged were spoken in
this sense. they impaired a charge OF crime. and
constituted SANDER. The evidence tending to
show that they had been uttered was briefly re-
viewed bv the court IL the jury we're not salts
fed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
uttered the words alleged. then the cause would
fail entirely.
II the words had been uttered, then the Jury
must consider whether they were in the nature
of a privileged communication The term
privileged communication was defined, and
the court. 10 applying the definition to the case
stated that, il the words uttered by Mr.. Alien a.
alleged were uttered to the United States mar
shall. he (Allenl believing them to be true. then
the communication would be privileged. because
il was the duty Of every citizen. If he believed a
crime had been committed. TO communicate to
the officers of the government. that the offend
ers against the law might be punished. ff
But at the basis of this principle was the ele-
ment that the communication should be made
in good faith, and If the Jury found that the al
legged statement Of the defendant 10 Marshal
Reyes was OF this nature, then he would be pro
tected. although the statement might actually
have been false The testimony tending 60 show
that the allegation of enmity aud malice on the
part Of the defendant in giving the Information
was true, was recounted, aud the Jury we're in
structcd that they we're TO be judges OF it, weight.
IL they found that the representation Of the de-
fendAnt was made in good faith il would be an
answer 20 this suit; If the contrary. they would
End q verdict for the plaintiff
III they found that the words were spoken. and
that they were not true, and were not privileged,
then upon the first count the question of damages
would arise On the second count, the plaintif
could recover special damages by proving not
only that the vofds were spoken. bu, thai thew
were spoken for the purpose of procuring his ar.
rest. ana causing him 10 be Imprisoned by the
government, and IL the jury found that the words
we're spoken. and for the purpose of causiog his
arrest. aud were not privileged, then the plaintiff
would be entitled TO recover damages for the in
juries he had sustained.
The question of damages must be submitted
10 the discretion Of the jury: they were not to
act from passion or sympathy, but in their calm
deliberate Judgment TO consider what would com
peosste the party for hi. injury; and they could
not give additional damage tor malice. unless
they found that malice bad aggravated the injury
the sianl& had sustained. eI,ufn.
The case vas recApitulated by the court in the
iollo~ing language 10 the jury
Upon the fsst cotnt. IL you find the words
were spoken, aud bore tse meaning attributed TO
them in the declaration. TO charge the plaintiff
with the crime of treason. then he will be entiti.
Ell 10 damages by reason Of the injury 10 his
character from those words spoken as they were
in the defendants house. on Sunday. TO Messrs.
Wright and jones. A more important question
- upon The second count. fou are 20 consider
whether the words ~ers spoken 10 Marsha Ke,es
as alleged, sad. wheIser the plaintiff. having the
burdes Of pspof. has satisfied you that they we're
spoken, and whether they we're true. lI