Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1873-04-23

|
no opinion will be expressed further than what
becomes incidentally necessary in the decision
Of this case.
This case seems TO derive its main interest
and Importance from the hitherto respectable
standing Of The parties concerned, rather than
from the magnitude Of the offence. 1t is not
an uncommon occurrence that breaches Of the
peace, Of quite as aggravated nature as this
one charged in this complaint. arise, and have
to be dealt with, among persons belonging b
the lower grades Of society. Indeed, such in
stances arc Of frequent and almost daily 90
currence, and attract little or no interest in the
community in which they occur
When, however, persons who claim high
standing in social, religious and political po-
sitions, coudoscend to become participants in
street broils and quarrels, and carry them 10
the extent Of blows and personal encounters,
the community are shocked, and, us they have
a right to do, demand judicial investigation
nto the circumstances attending such ARRAY
Such an examination has been had in this
case, ard am now called upon, as the magis-
trate before whom such examination was had e,
to announce the conclusions at which have
arrived from the proof presented before me.
1t often happens, in aifnys and quarrels Of
this nature, that all the parties concerned may
be guilty, and liable to be prosecuted and pun
ished. This occurs when al are voluntary par
Elephants in the ARRAY, either in producing it,
or countonancing i, after it is begun and
parties not actually engaged in such aiIray, but
who aid and encourage il, may he made liable
under the law.
Does the respondent stand in either Of the
above relations to this case2 Was he a yolun-
tary party to it? Did he in any manner do
any act to produce or continue the airay, or
did he abet it in any way? These inquiries
lead Us to brief examination Of the proof given
in the case. 1t seems from the proof that the
ARRAY occurred early in the morning Of March
20th, A. ID. 1873, that the reSpoSdcnt was on
bis way from his dwelling house to his
place of business that other gentlemen were
also passing along on the street just ahead Of
respondent, aud going in the same direction
that these gentlemen met John W. Clark 90
ing up Main street that just after Clark pass
ed these gentlemen he met the respondent that
instead Of passing him on the street. as he
would have done had be kept on straight ahead
he stepped abruptly 10 the left some three or
four feet, and placed himself directly in front
Of the respondent in his path and within foot
OF two Of him Now Of the facts 80 far there
is no dispute, Mr. Clark in his testimony admit
ting it. The testimony then shows that some
conversation ensued between Clark and the re-
spondent, as to which conversation there is
some little discrepancy in the statements of
the witnesses, although in the main these state
ments coincide.
The respondent says that Clark stopped him,
and said "Do you know what think Of you ?
You are a id black hearted villain" Also,
that Clark then spit in his face and kicked
him, and tried to get hold Of his nose, and
struck him on bis forehead Other CONVERSE
ton ensued, but enough is stated to show the
beginning Of the ARRAY.
Now Clark says in regard to the beginning Of
the ARRAY, that he stepped in front Of the re-
spondent to ask him certain questions, and says
this was by previous intention that he had
intended to do it when he could do it among
gentlemen. This most clearly shows that
CLARK commenced the ARRAY Clark further
says that after be stepped in front of the re-
spoudent, and told him what he SAYS he did,
that respondent made pass at him that he
warded it off, and then returned as god blows
as he could, etc.
Now what the respondent actually did at
that particular time becomes very material. as
it WIS in making that pass at Clark, if at all,
that respondent committed breach of the
peace. If he made such a pass at Clark in an
aggressive manner, and the same was uucalled
for in selt-defence, then in SO much he was in
fault, and would probably be liable
Respondent says lie made no such pass until
after CLARK he'd spit in his face, collared him
and kicked him, and what be did was done in
selfdeience, and in the endeayor to free him
self
CLARK admits not exactly that he spit in re-
spondent's facc-but, to use his own words,
that she Clark cleared his pipes and squared
himself for action and perhaps when he
cleared his pipes some Of it might have bit re-
spondents face. This seems to be virtually
admitting what respondent claims Clark does
not distinctly tell us when this occurred with
reference to the pass made by respondent; but
respondent said lie made no pass" at CLARK
until the latter spit in his face and kicked him.
We're there no corroborating proof either way,
we should be inclined to find that the splitting
was first for Clark himself says that as quick
as respondent struck out at him, he immediate
y began to give blows to respondent, which be
says respondent returned as fast Now we can
hardly believe that after blows of this chara C.
ter had commenced, the parties found time to
sop and spit in each others faces, for this
would be unusual. But the State produces
what they claim as corrOb1rating proof of
Clark on this point, u wit the testimony Of
Q. I. Summers and F L. Newc0mh. Sum
mers says he was in the upper story of Scovill's
furniture shop, twenty rods or more away, and
that he first saw the ARRAY looking through
the window and obliquely across the street ;
that the window was then let down that be
called Others etc.
lie says he saw Clark step in front of At.
kins; heard no words saw first respondents
hands raised, as though he was striking and
" clawing" Clark's face, shoulders, throat or
something saw Clark take hold of Atkins
coat collar and kick him number of times
etc. Now this is not what Clark says. lie
speaks Of no "clawing" of hands, but only
says Atkins made pass at him with one hand
the right, think he said. Mr.. Summers
place of observation, his distance from the
place Of conflict, and the suddenness Of the
transaction, did not anlrd him the best OPP
portunity for observation. Dodge and Whee-
lock, who were with Summers, and who think
they must have seen the occurrence about the
same time as Summers did, say that when they
first saw it Clark had respondent by the collar
or arms. Mr.. Newcolnb says he was driving
down Main street, and thatJ, Q, A. Peck was
in the sleigh with him. They were about OPP
posile the parties when the ARRAY began. New
comb says he saw a motion from Atkins
dldn't know what it meant, and the next thing
he saw was Clark grabbing Atkins, and saw
him kick him. Can't describe the motion
Atkins made--didn't stand near enough didn't
know whether he meant to strike or whether
he meant to lay down some rule or not saw
John Clark kick Mr.. Atkins, and saw him