Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-10

this point. but il has been in my wide ex-
perience the ussse of jaries Los to allow
the whole interest, particularly if the case
had run on as long as this, save in the
character of damsges for p1nity, or what
nay more explicitly be called vindietiYe
damages. And the right to claim
this sort of damages is based upon
the conduct Of the defendant ard
the motive for the seizure. There are
three ways in which vindictive damages
may arise-wantonness malicious motive,
and when the alleged wrong comes under
the characterize of an Outrage. You
Will more clearly understand the nature Of
''Wanion1ess' if you allow me TO explain
little. A number of gay young fellows,
under the inhCence of champagne or other
more vUlgar strcng GIink, 90 about
knocking down signs, damaging fences,
and overturaiDg frail buildings for what
is called sport" this is wantonness, and
claim for vindictiYe damages might be
set up. 1t is not the province Of jules to
sit on the moral conduct of defendants IN
civil cases, or irfict punishment. Do not
mingle any collateral injury, which pam
tiff may have sustained in cSnsequence of
the, seizure, with your deliberations All
that is before you is the dry amount of
the value of the coal and the bsrges. The
plaintiff mag have lost 800, 600, or gone
INTO bankruptcy, a. result OF theseizuEe-
That is net for you to consider. IF yen
think that the defendant, Pillow, honestly
believed that he was right, and that he
did not act in TaniOnness or malice, aud
thff there was nothing in bis cOnducs
thai would justify You in booking upon
the Seizure as an Cutragr, then you can
not ALLOW "Yindictive dsmsgss." One
offhe counsel claims those damages on
the ground that the act was an outrage.
IL IS necessary for You TO be well inform
ed as to the essential characteristics of
an outrage Everything commonly call
ed outrageous could not so be considered
in law. IL man consc,enliOusly be-
lieves he is right in doing a thing, then
that act cannot be called al outrage. The
MoImons, for instance, might cOnscieu-
uOusly fight for the maintenance or
spread of their principles Such q thing,
40 dOub', would violate oar seDse of pro
priety and right, and would lCOk
NN.NAee,SOs1T hf-l WIFI VI GNAuI ~
find out that these uen were acting from
con9centious convictions, then their &C
tons could 10. be called outrageous He
mad been brought up III a school himself
which taught the necessity of strong
and his own convictions
ran in fay2s thereof, yet having come
down here Nd mingled among thepeOple
who were commonly accused in other
sections Of having been guilty of so out
rage, he felt certain that hundreds of
Thousands Of Them hsdactsd from coz
vicious Ofright. TBeSe does IOt appear
amy proof to sU tain the charge that Gen.
Pillow was actusted by any other than
strong convictions Of right lou CANNOT
give vindictive damages unless you find
that the manner Of seizure was outrage
Qua, that The motives were malicious, or
thai the act was done in mere wantonness.
Ia the case Of the defendant, Murphy,
you will have 90 exercise your best judg-
msnt L. appears that he was concerned
as an agent in the seizure of the coal. Ii
you titd th5t be had nothing TO DO with
the barges or boat, then you will have
either to bring in 3 verdict agsiEst Pillow
and Murphy for the coal alone; or you
viii have TO bring in your verdict against
Pillow alone for the whole property. You
cannot connect Murphy in your verdict
with the seizure of properly, with which
the testimony may show be had nothing
to do. II, therefore, you include Murphy
IN your verdict, you can only return fer
coal. If you return for al, barges and
boat, you must exclude Murphy.
THE VERDICT.
The jury retiyd to consider about
O'Clock, and at twenty minutes after .
brought in a verdict 70 pl4inuffs against
both defendants for S35, 3S9. IS, includ-
ing principal snd interest on the coal.