The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1866-10-27
Case of the Bangor Democrat.
JUDGE TArLEY's CHARGE TO THE JURY

committed TO you is one of unusual intarast
me lime ana circumstances connected with
the acus complained OF, and the defence now
made, invest it with more than ord;nar,, i Nv;
pUr'anJe. III is one requiring your calm. care
ui anu conslderate attention. and II ~ anv
linz ieehngs OF personal or political character
n Lev presented themselves to you, you must
now at the very threshold ofyour INVESTIGATIONS
;ast tnem aside and determine the ouestions at
ssu u, between these parties upon the evidence
u ohe case and the law given YOU by the court.
ou are Inc arbiters of all questions of the fact
he to i H. court must determine the law applica-
alohe rests the responsibility of a coryect
exposition of the law " 0oiioo'
. these plaintiffs seek damages for tho do.+,,o
I oe1 vi .nelr property ON the 18th of August.
1901, consisting of the Bangor Democrat $50
ing establishment The evidence estabI;shas
their ownership and the fact that the nresses
were broken and thrown into the street Will
the type and other property of the establish
ment, and subsequently burned in the street.
Fourteen OF the sixteen defendants denv thew
in the transaction, and the other
two justify their act.
The action is in ,orm trespass.
+,,a . the unlawful intermeddilng with
.no So = of another to their damage or destruc-
=. The destruction of the property alleged by
the nlantiffs to have been destroyed ON the
18th of August, 1861, was a trespass, unless
justification for SO doing has been SHOWN.
The act of trespass may be committed by
manual means. or It may be done by the agen-
CIV of another; for what a man does by an agent
he does himself. r.,
The act may be committed by one indiyidu-
al or by many acting in concert.
When fine act is done by more than one, act
ing in concert in pursuance OF pre-concelved
plan, it is not necessary to render party liable
that he should actually touch any OF the prop
erty injured or destroyed, if he actually pdrts-
c1pates in the trespass.
action of the tresspassers, either by words, ges-
lures or signs But it must be an encouraging
or melting to action. Inc mere presence OF
the party without disappearing OF the acts, does
not render the party liable. line Is aspectator,
and innocent of any unlawful act, (which act
may be by word, look or gesture, the fact that
he NAV not regret the acts and disposition of
the trespassers will not render him liable.
He must in short be aparticipdtor in some
way to make him liable Being passive and
doing nothing to prevent the tresspass VIII not
make him liable. ac
In order to recover of more than one indi-
vidual, they must be guilty of the same tres
pass. You cannot in this action find verdict
against two individuals for the trespass of
one. Those found guilty Gf any,, must be
guilty of the same trespass. 10 illustrate, it a
portion of those defendants were guilty Of
throwing the press and other property from
the window and another portion were guilty
only of collecting the matter thus thrown out,
Aooe
guilty of the throwing out; unless it was a
part and parcel of the same trespass If an
individual put single piece of board thrown
from the window upon the fire after it was
kndled, or put single newspaper upon the
fire, which had been thrown out he cannot be
made liable for the destruction of the whole
property by that single act, unless that act is
done as q part of the general design. IT the
act was done wholly independent Of the for
mer, and with no relation to it and no connec-
ton with it, the party is responsible for only
what he did, and what he did depends upon
the facts and the law as have before stated to
you.
1t may become material, therefore, to inquire
into the trespass independent OF the identity
of the parties engaged in it.
| Was it committed in pursuance of precon-
ceived plan and design?
| From the testimony of Major Mann and the
testimony of Mr.. Clarke yon may perhaps and
| probably will come to the conclusion that it
| was preconceived and arranged trespass.
| If it was a pre-conceived plan, and any other
| parties entered into the plan before or during
| its execution, they would all become liable
for the acts of each other in the execution OF
| the design.
But if after the commission of the trespass
| or during the execution of the plan, a person
does an act wholly independent and disconnect-
| ed with the original plan and design, he does
before by so doing. He may be held response
| BILE in proper form of action for what lie did
| hut not for what others did without any narti-
| cipation ON his part.
To illustrate: if the original plan was
smnlv to hreal the presses and throw the
paper and type into the street, amt there leave
f and after This was done DR.. Harlow wen
into the street and picked uu a newsnaper. hay
ing no connection with the former transaction
n,aJo rasnons;hle for the hrealSi1o of the nras
and destroying of the type by other partie
with whom he had no connection. -7-
Therefore, inquire what the preconcerte,
nlan was Major Mann savs-ssI was in Mt tn
destruction of the press i knew it was to b.
| done + was informed beforehand Inv Honkins
Na;tbar of the defandants called Tnon me
The defendants offered to prove what the infor
nation was conveyed by Hopkins, but tn
nlaintiffs Directing it was excluded. There
ind man Jvas Mann also test;t;os tI,ot 20
had been nravided such "a ha,mnanrs ''i,su 'oo az
was about the middle of the forenoon / ha,
notice to- 90 We meant to leave the nronert,
so fhqt the- :, rIoU pc printed" Hop
| kins, Taber, and Thompson were all the mel
Mann knew in the work. Hopkins and Thomp
son are not here, and Taber knew nothing, h
says of the previous arrangement. Tina
leaves us with the testimony of Mann as to the
original design. ITO leave the property 81
that the paper should not be printed"
Was there anv DESIGN To on bevond tb;ss
Did thew also design to burn I'm The mater;a
after thTowinp ont or was This hurn;ng s;rnnl,
q ~oyemant of the neonle e outs;da 6o sn npn
nected with any previous arrangement ant
wholly indenendent of itP ~ p = - ~.
. If there was no design ON the part of Man,
and Taber and the otheIs engaged with then
in throwing it out, to come and burn it. destro,
it or have it burned or DESTROYED nv anv On!
else, then the burning by persons below VIII
found it on the street. wonld const;tnte a mar
and indenendent tresnass for which they wnm 1
he liable: and Taber and Mann and the otber
engaged with them. having thrown this nron
erty Where it becomes DESTROYED would ba i;p
bic for the goods, unless thew were legally ins
tilted in doing SO. bnt wonld NOT he sShScff ~ :
punishment for malieionsJy burning thS Main
tiff's property. p'''-'
If On he other hand the original das;on vo
to burn or destroy i'm any way and anv 6artia
coming along aided IN the destrnct;pn h,
the burning. that made them contributors to tn
whole DESIGN and they must in this action snt
fer the same consequences, and it matters no
ct what time any nartv ;onad T. The a%ennti no