Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1871-05-16
Uilhenson rs. Woodburu.

.h, Editor In your issue of May I'd,
you say Wilkinson got verdict for ST.
G16 damages, and the case goes up TO
the full court. The ease is this. May
18th, 1869, Patrick WILKINSON, of Lisbon,
was arrested for breaking and entering a
store, and taking and carrying away
goods iherefrom, convicted upon his own
les;ion, and sentenced by Trial JUS
tice Cotton 10 the Reform School, and
brought there by Deputy Sheriff Coombs,
Of Androscoggin County, Sept. sth,
Superintendent f. w. Woodbury. was
summoned 10 appear before Judge God
dard, of the Superior Court at Portland,
and the boy, Patrick Wilkinson. was
brought in on Il writ of Habeus Corpus
The Superintendent answer TO the writ
was. that he held the boy by virtue of n
.MittimtS. issued by Trial Justice Cotton,
and the boy WAS rcmanded to his custody.
On The 10Th OF October, 1869, Just one
month ailelward the boy was again tax.
en- from the Superintendent on another
writ OF HdbeHS Corpus and again brought
before Judge Goddard and discharged.
About one year aiterward an action of
trespass WAS commenced against Mr.
Woodbury. by Patrick Wilkinson, through
his next friend. James Wilkinson, LAYING
the damages 1T one thousand dollars -
The action was tried at the present term
OF the $. J. Court in Androscoggin Co.
II appeared upon trial that the boy, Gas
we'll as the boys tathcr) requested the
Sheriff TO take him to the Reform School.
The Sheriff communicated this request to
the Trial Justice, who without consdera.
ton sentenced him as above stated
There was no prctcnco but that tho bog
was well treated; indeed the boy stated
that he went to school four hours every
day, and learned the trade of shoe mak-
ing, SO he could make Il good shoe, aud
was we'll clothed and led The Superin.
tendendent testified to the general i'm
proyemcnt OF the boy, while under his
care aud the rapid progress made in his
studies. The Judge charged the Jury
that the .HHjmuS was no protection TO
the Superintendent, rs the Justice OK.
ceeded his authority in sentencing the
boy, but if the Jury decide that the IA
Their desired the boy sent to the School,
and the boy desired TO go, there was no
keeping him against his will, and there
fore no trespass, But il they came 10
the conclusion that the boy was kept by
the Superintendent any part of the time
against his will and the will of his father,
there was tresSpass. If they found
there was atrespass, they mus, assess the
damage. This they could assess any
where between on cent and the sum
claimed The jury was out about three
hours. and returned verdict of guilty,
and assessed the damage ut Sl6.7G, which
carried to one quaIter cost, Si.19.
amounting 10 s20.9j. which was paid by
Mr. Woodbury. in satisfaction OF Judg
ment, and here the action ends.
1t appears from the ruling OF the Court
that the Superintendent of the Reform
School must examine all lhtnmuSe$, and
il in his judgment the court have exceed
ed their authority, or mistaken the law,
lie is not t. receive the convict. And by
the average Judgment OF an Androscog-
gin Jury. that for not reversing the de-
cision OF the Court, but fol receiving 4
boy that did not know his letters, who
was guilty of grave offence by his own
confession. feeding him, clothing him,
teaching him to read and write, and to
sew bottoms upon shoes, siying him The
privileges OF the Sabbath School and
other religion, and moral instruction tor
five months, he must be- mulcled in the
sum of twenty dollars md ninety-iirc
cents.