Tri-weekly union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-186?, 1866-10-27
Driving UniOnists from their Homes
Interesting Decision by Our Supreme
Court.

At the late term of our Supreme Court al
Knoxville, the following important de-
cision was delivered, which is appli.
cable to, perhaps, a large number Of
similar cases in East Tennessee. The
ruling of several of the Circuit judge
in that section on the point involved, are
thus reversed, and wholesome rule laid
down for the guidance of juries:
SAMSON WILLIAM rs. ISAAC GAINS.
This is an action of trespass brought in
the Circuit Court for the county of Hancock,
by the defendant in error, for an assault and
battery for injury done to the property and
person of the defendant in error; the decla-
ration contains but one count which AYERS
the plaintiff in error did beat, bruise and
imprison him, and by reason of threats
forced him to leave his home and flee to the
State of Kentucky, whereby his dwelling
house and other property was destroyed; the
plea of not guilty was filed to the declara-
ton it appears from the proofin 1861, the
came into.the town of Sneadsville, much ex-
cited, and some one in the crowd said to the
defendant in error ifhe did not get down on
his knees they would cut off his head
they had come to drive the Lincolnites out
of the town the defendant did not get
down as commanded. There was much
abusive language used by the crowd, of
which the plaintiff in error formed a part !;
there was no blows or other injury inflicted
on the defendant in error, or any attempt
or offer to inhict any injury upon them.
Shortly thereafter the defendant left the
! 4 4
went to the State of Kentucky, Joined the
Federal army and was absent three years ;
during his absence his dwelling and out
houses were destroyed; there is no proof the
plaintiff in error had any agency in the
destruction of the property; on the trial Of
the cause the counsel for the plaintiff in err
ror objected to the proof going to the jury,
of the defendant going to Kentucky, and
the destruction of his property, unless the
plaintiff was connected with it. The OBJ
lection was overruled and the evidence per-
mitted to go to the jury. The court among
other things not excepted to, charged the
Jury eff the plaintiff in error or the mob, or
any one of them while so assembled, by
their acts, menaces or threats, caused the de-
PENDANT in error to leave his home and
friends, and while absent his property was
destroyed, the plaintiff inerror will be liable
for the destruction, provided you are salts
fed from the testimony that the defendant
in error could have saved his property if he
could have remained at home"
A verdict and judgment was rendered in
favor Of the defendant in error for 81 900; a
new trial was moved for and obtained; the
plaintiff in error has appealed to this court
The charge of the court is erroneous. This
being an action for an assault and battery,
the defendant in error Gould only recover
such special damages as are strictly the con-
sequences of the trespass committed. The
acts done must constitute a part of one GER
tain transaction, of which the principal tres
pass was the commencement-4th Hump.
l34. The court erred in permitting the
proof to go to the jury, that the defendant
had left for the State of Kentucky, and the
subsequent destruction of his property, I'M
less it appeared it was pat of the original
trespass, and our transaction, and the plant
iff in error was present aiding and abetting
in the destruction of the property. From an
examination of this record, there is no proof
to sustain the verdict Of the jury. The
paiBti iq srT9T was in crowd Of men men,
to the defendant in error ly some one in the
disturbed. No assault or battery was COM
mttted on his person, or other injury done
him. A few DAYS thereaftG he left his home
for Kentucky. During hisabsence his home
and buildings were destroyed.
There is no proof the plaintiff in error
had any agency whatever n the destruction
of the property, nor is thee any proof that
he molested or used violet language to the
defendant in error. He vas with the crowd
who used the offensive eithets, and if any
injury had been done thedefendant in error
by any party with whih the plaintiff in
error was associated, theyhaving assembled
for an unlawful purpos, the plaintiff in
error would have been esponsible for the
consequences.
1t is a settled principe Of this Court, If
\ there is any evidence to ustain the verdict,
| it viii not be disturbed. In this case there
/ is a total want Of evidace. It ought 10
have been set aside, and new trial granted.
| A large discretion is VISITED in the Circuit
/ Judge in such cases, an where the verdict
is not sustained by the roof it ought 20 be
set aside. The peace ah quiet Of the coun-
try greatly depends upo theproper exercise
Of this discretion, and never before in the
history Of our country rs il been so import
ant for the Circuit Judg Of the State TO 50
assidously guard the tnl by jury, and see
that it does not become means Of oppres-
sion rather than justice. Unless the verdict
is sustained by proof, fought not, in any
case, to stand.
The Judgment is revend, and new trial
awarded SHAc1LFoRD, Judge.
A true copy. Test:
NJ. J.. Paterson. Clerk.