Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-11-20

curious lawsuit has been just brought to a
close, in Hamilton county, Ohio. A man named
Sortman lives somewhere in that county, who
employed man named Robinson to aid him in
his work. Sortman is SOBER industrious, and
enterprising. Robinson is not in any way re-
markable save for a love Of strong drink. Very
often he was much more attentive to the grog-
shop than to his business. This bad habit be
came very great annoyance 10 his employer
who finally took measures TO reform his charac-
ter, and make him a total abstaner from intox-
eating liquors. The task was not an easy one,
but at length formal contract between Sortman
and Robinson was made, TO this effect Sort
man would give Robinson clothing and other
things Of value, and Robinson granted Sortman
a right to whip" him, if he should ever again
get drunk. In word he pledged himselfto alb
stain from strong drinks forevermore, agreeing
that he would penitently receive a sound thrash
ing, if the pledge should be violated.
Sortmau's part of the contract was duly full
filed; and, not long afterwards Robinson put
on his new suit of clothes, obtained the use of
his employers horse and buggy, and went off
on a drunken spree more frightfu than any of
his previous performances. The buggy was
smashed and the horse ruined. The fellow man
iiestly deserved whipping, and Sortmau sur
Veyiug the wreck was not in a mood to forego
his rights under the contract. He accordingly
procecde TO whip Robinson, and the blows were
given with admirable vigor. Robinson finding
them much to hot and heavy for comfort broke
away and ran; but he was swiftly overtaken,
and the whipping was duly finished. This did not
restore the horse and buggy, nor does it appear
that the drunkard's bad habit was affected by the
operation; but the contract was fulfilled accord
ing to agreement. Robinson, however, was not
satisfied. Therefore, he instituted a suit at law,
claiming damages to the amount of $1,000.
The case was tried, last week, and the evil
dence showed the facts to be as we have stated.
The comticharsed the jury as follows:
"a contract whereby one man agreed 10 per
nit another one TO whip him in any given con-
tin2en was contract contrary to Jaw, and
therefore the parties, being in pari delictl the
law will leave them as they are But any man
might abandon aud avoid his contract, and the
other party has no remedy but by suit for dam
ages Tor breach of contract. Then if Robinson.
by running from the bows of the whip, or by
otherwise dissenting from the whipping, showed
apurpose 10 reeede from his contract (of which
purpose the jury would Judge from the evil
demo J, the party administering the whipping
would have no right TO proceed further by way
OF SPECIFIC performance. Further, il is charged
that the expression "whipping" is a well known
term and oil well known meaning A lawful
whipping would not iuclude blows on the head
or face, but as scbOnl boys well know, on other
parts OF the body
The jury returned a verdict of SIS damages
for the plaintiff This, we suppose, was on ac.
count Of that part Of the whipping, which was
inflicted after the fellow broke away and ran.
this being interpreted as withdrawal from his
part Of the contract