The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1870-01-13
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.


lull report of the evidence and the charge OF
Judge Walton. AS the evidence presented
at the second trial has no new features, we
omit the whole The facts developed in the
ease are briefly these: In De cember, 1866.
Axcl Havford. now Mayor Of Belfast. made
a complaint before the Police Court, against
stephen Stickney and wife, tor keeping a
house of iIl-llme. and against his four dangh-
trrS for open, gross lewdness and EscN-
business They were arrested, examined by
Judge Patterson, and III default OF hail to
await the action ri thc Grand Jury were
committed to Jail The same night bail was
Procured for Sticknev and wife and on the
following day the four daughters were like
wise released on bail This action is brought
.1r,coyer - 900 damages in the case of the
.,oureSt daughter, Gcorgiama. AT the for
fiji rial verdict of $500 was returned,
which was set aside as being excessive IN
-a,. present trial the plaintiffs case was man
need bv A G. ,Jewett and W. IL. Foglcr,
l.a-. Gen. + : Nckcrson appeared for
'h,. defence
Mr. lewcu had sumnione,la large number
oi the Supprintendcnts Of the Public Schools.
teachers and pupils, to show the GOOD char
letct aft the plaintiff. aud her exemplary con-
Iurt ,t The schn0l~-but this class of testi-
o,ry was excluded lie then offered the
testimony at two surgeons who had made Il
.u.,.i-lI examination OF the plaintiff, and
,.a.. ready - u~tty lhat She was virgin.
rnis WIS excluded upon the suggestion of
tine defence that they would admit the fact.
With thu Iasi exception, the evidence for the
plaintiff was pretty much as before.
Gen Nickerson offered to prove thai, in
making the complaint, Mr.. Hayford had
eial upon reliable miormation-aiso that
.1c character of the house WAS bad. This
was excluded The general line Of defence
was that Mr. Hayforl had acted upon intor-
nation and without malice toward the plain
tjt aud tina. her Imprisonment by error of
1h magistrate was not one Tor which he
toali be- held responsible
Judge Cutting then delivered the follow
gg charge 10 the jury
tscnllcmcn--l on have perceived in the lriai Of
1hj~ rise thai There has been considerable excite
mrIlt Exhibited the part OF the learned counsel;
perhaps by each about equal. Bat, gentlemen,
whatever may br their excitement, YOU must have
none yourselves. No sympathy should be eXer-
pi~e1 and nothing but Your sound Judgment and
discretion should control YOU III the examination of
The testimony which has been submitted to you.
There has been great deal said i'll the argu
mtuts upon one side and the other, based entirely
anon that which is nol III the east: and that you
IRE wholly 10 disregard, and look solely 10 the teS
linlony which ha- been given 10 You. You are to
be- governed hy thu testimony and the laW-and if
there has hren :tuV argument not based upon the
evidence, vOu are to disregard it.
The parties come before you equal in the eyes of
the law: SO you will have no sympathy because one
rich and The other poor. or because of the com
ptrAyely adj yanced age of the one and the infancy
o the other. 1t has been stated to you that there
Ai> been a former trial and a verdict. and the
amount of that verdict has been stated. and certain
testimony has been mentioned which has not been
introduced here You have nothing to do with
That, but simply 10 look, as have already said, to
10e testimony which mas been presented to you.
Certain testimony has been ruled out and com
iuents made upon it though il had berl sulmiSSi-
hic but moi properly. \ Oh are 10 give no attcn-
ton 10 what said on 4 former trial. only where
u has herH shown that witness testified differ
entity on Il former trial.
The writ in this case embraces Two eounts-two
declarations. one is substantially Il suit for mi-
i..ious prosecution, ANA that VIII consider first,
because first IN the writ. That substantially
charges tild on tlC l1lftl UN OF lbeteMDcf, lStl
HE defendant procured warrant against tins
plaintiff, alleging that She was guilty OF gross la
~cyiouS behavior by lying III bed with divers men,
to Complainant unknown. That reduced to
writing by The Police Judge. ami the defendant
made oath 10 il. That was his offence, if offence it
was at all Then the question arose whether he
had probable for making such charge, be
eause if he had probable cause then he was iust
lied, although mistaken III the Plaintiff He could
have shown that, perhaps under other clrcum
,tance., but here it has been already admitted that
his female was virupuS and that he knew moth
ing against her. and the law implies that She is Vir
tuous, II they had wanted TO impeach her chasti-
Us, they could have done The law implies that
She was innocent and there testimony in
PRODUCED to the contrary and therefore rnlrd that
They could not show the character Of the house 1t
was cOntended that She residing with them might
DE guilty becase OF 50 residing, aud that the de-
PENDANT would be justified in taking her; but
ruied that he could not show that i'll the character
u The father and mother and the other three sis
trIs-becauSe she was an infant, and she must of
necessity live with her father and mother in that
heuSe; and for the character of the other in
mates OF the house she cannot be made RESPONSE
Ne. So to the character of the house, ali COM
nent~ will be irrelevant.
Then upon that complaint drawn by the magis-
tlae and sworn to by the complainant charging
her with the crime, she was arrested upon a war
rant by, and carried before the Police Judge-shc
Wlth the other members of the family. But YOU
may disregard the other members OF the family
however guilty they may have been-that has
nothing to do with this plaintiff. No matter what
they or any else have said before the Police
Court or elsewhere. unless IT is connected with his
plaintiff
That She was brought before the Police Court.
NOW am speaking Of her alone and the warrant
was read has not been denied by any testimony:
hut it appears by the testimony of the magistrate
himself, that although he examined severalwitness-
Is upon the other warrants he examined none in
relation TO this plaintiff. But Notwithstanding that
ne ordered her to recognize in the sum of $500 for
her appearance at this Court Now there being no
evidence against her, it was the imperative duty of
fhe magistrate to have discharged her. Had he
tone that the damage to her would have been
night, bat instead OF that he ordered her to recoc-
nize, as | said before
But Mr. Haytord is not to be held for any mis-
lake OF tne magistrate, unless he instigated or in
duced him to wrong decision. If he was there
merely as a Witness and did nothing to induce the
magistrate to violate his duty then he is not to be
held liable in that respect
Then again it is said that after that-during the
lrial-she requested time to procure counsel, and
was refused by the magistrate. The same princi-
PIE applies there, with the magistrate. He should
have given her time. There is some conflict of es-
umony here. Some testify that the reouest for
counsel was not ma lie till after the trial and 9TH
erN testify that ii made after the first warrant
was read.
Now if Mr.. Hayford was there only as wit
ness, and did not induce this refusal of counsel
tt there was reflsal) he is not at fault But if
ne induced 1t, he must be responsible for it,
inen after the warrant of commitment was is
Sueu II is slu that the officer hurried her along
faster than he should. But it is shown that the d.
tendant was not present--and unless he had toll