The Portland daily press., 1869-02-03

A Remarkable Case-Judge Goddard vs.,
the Grand Trunk Railw ay of Canada, |
for Assault and Battery i'm December,
1866.
Our Court report shows that in this case,
which was tried Monday in the Supreme
Court before Judge Walton, the jury gave a
verdict against the defendants for $3.50 YES
terday forenoon.
The facts as proved are that Judge Goddard,
on the afternoon of Dec. %, 1866, took the l
o'clock train for Auburn on Christmas visit
to his family, then residing in that town. At
Falmouth, half hours delay occurred, and
plaintiff took occasion to leave the train to
transact some business with person at the
station. AS he stepped from the cars man
by the name of Hiram jackson, an entire
stranger to plaintiff, demanded his ticket to
Danville Junction, which was given up to
seat in the rear passenger car. AS soon as the
train started towards Cumberland, four miles
distant, Jackson entered the car, approached
plaintiff and remarked to him IF you had
been a gentleman you would have returned
me your ticket" The Judge replied that he
had given him the ticket Jackson then told
him he was damned liar, and followed up
this by advancing between the Seats leaning
over plaintiff and brandishipg his fist in his
face, threatened his life in the following style:
"God damn you~damn your soul, you are
here trying to ride without paying either way,
and you are trying to get back without pay
ing. God damn you. don't care five
cents for my situation; if you are not careful
I'll knock your brains out. God damn
you, speak another word and I'll knock your
God damn brains out. Oh! damn your
soul, if you open your lips again will knock
your brains out right here. don't care
who you be, if you speak again I will spill
your brains if your President of the United
States" And this assault, brutality and pro-
family he persisted in during the entire dis
lance between the two stations, and until the
whistle sounded at Cumberland required jack
sons presence at the brakes. Judge G. was
unarmed.
On that train happened to be Mr.. Richard,
of Montreal, an official of the road, to whom
Mr.. Goddard made complaint whereupon
jackson was summoned, and coolly stated that
when he asked for Mr.. Goddards ticket out
side the car he was told by the Judge to go to
hell. This Mr.. Goddard denied, and Whit
ney, the regular conductor was sent for, and
the outrage detailed to him. Whitney being
appealed to by jackson, pronounced Jackson's
story about the ticket false, and added that
jackson gave him Danville Junction ticket
| at Falmouth and told him he had Just taken
| it from lawyer. Whitney then produced the
| ticket, which Judge Goddard testified as his,
Thereupon reparation was promised for the
| outrage, but none has ever been given. On
| the contrary, Jackson has been retained in his
| place, and indeed, last fall was promoted.
After waiting in vain for redress from the
Company or its agents at Montreal, Mr. God
| dard, two and half months after the assault,
sued them for $4,000. At the trial no apology
| was made for Jackson's conduct, nor any evil
dence offered to contradict the testimony of
plaintiff. Nor was any explanation offered of
Jackson's motives, nor was he called by de-
PENDANTS to testify, although the Company had
brought him into Court as one of their wit
nesses. s-#ssS4ts .
1t was admitted by Mr.. Barnes, the Com
pany's Solicitor, that an assault of the most
wanton, brutal and outrageous type had been
peacable passenger who had paid his fare and
was sitting quietly in their car and under their
protection, and that, too, without pro location:
neither was it denied that Jackson was au-
thorized to demand and receive tickets in
Whitney's absence. But he contended that
the Company was not liable for the assault, be-
cause they had not authorized it and had no
knowledge of it until after it was over. 1t was
mere private affair between Judge Goddard
and Hiram jackson, only that and nothing
more, argued Mr.. Barnes with much ingenuity
and ability.
Upon this point the Court instructed the
jury that if jackson made the assault upon
motives of private ill-will and revenge the de-
PENDANT Company could not be liable; but if
at the time of the assault, he was authorized
to demand and receive the plaintiffs ticket,
having demanded and received it, he pursued
the plaintiff into the car under pretence that
the ticket had not been surrendered, intend
ing to exercise his authority to ascertain
whether or not the plaintiff had surrendered
his ticket, or was attempting fraudulently to
ride in the cars without paying his fare; and
in so doing permitted himself to become ex-
cited, and made the assault described by the
plaintiff and his witness Burleigh, he (Jack-
SOM would be acting in the course of his en-
ployment so as to make the defendant Com
pany liable. and that the plaintiff would be
entitled to recover, not only such damages as
would be full and just compensation for the
injuries thus inflicted upon him, but such fur
Their punitory damages as would serve for an
example and tend to protect travellers against
similar assaults in the future.
Gen. Shepley's closing argument for the
plaintiff was one of his ablest efforts. clear.
forcible, logical and eloquent.
The trial was conducted with great dignity
and propriety throughout.