Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1873-04-23

If ever you put me in your paper, will 60
for you again" Atkins made no motion till
he was struck
Thomas Moriarty and j. @. A. Peck gave
no new facts or incidents. Mr.. Greenwood
testified Atkins said to Clark, LET me go;
l don't want to fight" Oliver Wheelock
and Alcott Dodge gave no additional facts.
Mr.. Atkins testified freely. He saw Clark
coming, but didn't look at him. Clark
stepped in front of me, stopped me. aud said
81 think YOU a black-hearted villain"
hawked and then spit in my face. Took me
by collar, kicked me on pelvis bone, four
times, and tried to reach my nose; l tried to
keep that hand away. Struck me in the face.
George Peck said: "Don't, Uncle John,
don't; it is disgraceful. came down on
came up. Brown led Clark away. Told me
what he should do If put him in the paper
| -d-n you, I'll lick you again 1t you put
me in your paper-l don't recall the exact
words. Had mark on my nose, scratch on
ny neck, was kicked, and was tender about
the roots of the hair Laid wet rag on my
nose and went to business. Next morning L
was not handsome; the blood had settled
about nv eyes, and | staid at home from
church; went to my Office Monday morn
| ing, as usual, but was little sore during
| the week
On cross examination Mr.. Atkins said
Clark first spoke in low but concentrated
tone The scab on Clark's face mi ht have
been made in pushing Clark off from me.
didn't like to be kicked. | didn't want tc
fight. didn't look at Clark when he met
me. Clark stepped 10 front of me. Don
remember of trying to pass him. L SAID
John Clark, this has gone far enough; 1t Ii
disgraceful I gave him a soft answer.
Had 10 idea there would be any violence.
Capt. Clark testified that he met Atkins
near Atkins place of business. Told him
| would tell him what thought Of him
that he was scoundrel and a black hearted
villain. 4 kins made a pass at me and re-
turned the b'oW. Don't recall any remarks
of Atkins We stool face to face. He
struck with his right hand. [ warded the
blow with my lett and caught him. Atkins
scratched some, and wrested some, in which
game | took a hand Cross examined, he
said | kicked at him; hit him two or three
times He had hold Of me-but | can t tell
where When | met him l told him j
would tell him what | thought of him.
began to talk. Atkins struck from hi
shoulder | blowed off AMI cleared my
pipes for action the spit may have gone
INTO his face. We were slightly mixed up
Didn't IN can to strike him or thrash him
When he struck, | struck back : hit hi
proboscis, or nasal organ. Told him h
must not Islander and belle me that haC
my mark on him and should find him sure
Had never threatened him to his face before
There was much other testim )ny, but We
have given all we have rom for, or tia
| bou hoo hk
case. The following is the opinion oS Jus
tice R )binson. written out By him self
DECISION OF NELSON ROBINSON, ESQ.
This is a Grand Jurors Complaint, charging th
respondent, Hiram Atkins, VITA having committee
a breach ofthe peace by tumuituous ana offensive
carriage, by threatening, qnarTeiinS' assaultlnS
beating and striking one john W. Clark in a pup
lie street in the village of Montpelier, on the 29tl
/ 4 similar complaint has been made by the Crane
Juror against John w. CLARK upon which he ha
already been arragned, and that Is now pend
ing and IN regard to that opinion Will b,
expressed further than what becomes incidentally
| neces sarv IN the decision OF this
| Thi. ease seems To derive Its III lin interest and
Importance from the hitherto respectable standl
of the parties concerned rather than from The IN as
nitu,le of the offence. Ii IS not an uncommon Oc
currence that breaches of the peace OF quite
aggra waited nature this one charged IN tnis com
sons belonging TO the lower grades Of society. In
deed, such instances are OF frequent and aimOS ST
daily occurrence and attract Iltllc interest
the community in which they occur.
When, however, persons VINO claim hlgh standing
in social, religious and political positions, condo
scend to become participants IN street brols ant
quarrels, and carry them 10 The extent of blow
aud personal encounters, the community are shock
ed. and. as they have a ght to do, demand jude
ial investigation INTO the circumstances attending
Such an examination has been had in this case
and am called upon as the mdgIstrat
before whom such examination was had TO an
nounce the conclusions at which have arrive
,afaf,, Nod hpfp ma
1t often happens in ARRAYS and quarrels of thi
nature that all the parties concerned may be guilty
and liable to be prosecuted and punished I'm
occurs when all are voluntary participants in tht
ARRAY, either in producing 1t, or countenancIng
after it is begun, and parties not actually engage
in such affIay, but who AID and encourage 1t, ma.
be made liable under the law.
, Does respondent stand in either of the above
! relations to this case? Was he voluntary part,
to it? DID he in any manner do any act 10 produc,
or continue the ARRAY, or did he abet II IN any way
, These inquiries lead us 10 a bnef eX animation O
the proof given IN the case 1t seems from tn
proof that the ARRAY occurred early in the morning
OF March 10Th, y. d, ISIS that the respondent Wa
on his way from his house ID his place OF business
that other gentlemen were also passing along o
the street lust ahead OF respondent. and g0ln.
IN the same direction, that these gentlemen me
John W. Clark gong up Main stree, that just alte
Clark passed these gentlemen lie met the res pond
ent that instead OF passing hun on the street h.
would have done had he kept on straight ahead, n
stepped abruptly to the left some three lou
: feet and placed himself directly IN front of the
spondent and III his path and within foot or tw
OF hun. Now of the facts far there dispute
MIR. CLARK in his testimony admitting 1t. The les
, timonv then shows that some conversation enSuet
: between Clark and the respondent. TO whic
conversation there Is some little discrepancy IN tn
statements of the Witnesses, although the mail
6 these statements coincide.
The respondent says that Clark stopped him
and said Z" do you know what think of you: You
are id black hearted vIlIan'
That Clark then spit IN his face and kicked, anC
tried to get hold of his nose and struck him hl
e forehead. Other conversation ensued, but enuug
is stated to show the beginning of the affray.
Now Clark says IN regard to the beginning of tn
aflTay that he stepped IN front of the pom den
10 ask HIM certain questions, and says this was D.
previous intention; that lie had iutende i 10 10
; when he could do 1t among gentlemen. This mos
e Clearly shows that Clark commenced the affray
Clark further says that alter he stepped IN front
respondent, and told him what he says he dId Thu
l respondent made pass at him; that he waIded
on and then returned as good blows as he coulu
; etc
5 Now what the respondent actually did at that pa
= ticular time becomes very material, AS 1t WAS
making that pass at Clark, if at all that Responder
committed breach OF tae peace. If he made sue
a pas at Clark III an aggressive manner, an til
same was uncalled in selfdefence, then IN ;
much he was in fault. and would probably be hab
Respondent says he made no such pass until a
lei Clark had spit in his face, coiiared him an
, kicked hlm, and what he did was done in seif-dt
fence, and in the endeavor to tree himself
> Clark admits-not exactly that he spit IN respon(
t ent's face-but, to his words that " h
a (Clark) cleared his pipes and squared himself 70
: action; and perhaps when he cleared his pipe
some of 1t might have hit respondents face" Til
seems to be virtually admitting what responder
claims. Clark does not distinctly tell us wnen Thu
occurred Win reference 10 Inc pass made b
n respondent; but respondent says he made n
pass at Clark until the latter spit In his face an
kicked him. Was there no corroboratng proc
e either way, should be inclined to find hat III
t splitting first; for Clark himself says a
quick respondent struck out at him he Immt
diately began to give blows TO respondent, whic
k he says respondent returned fast. Now ca
h hardly believe that after blows OF this characte
= had commenced the parties found time To stop ant
spit in each others faces, for this would be
d But the state produces what they claim as cOrrt
bOratng proof of Clark on this point to tn
testimony of Z. L. Summers and f. l.. NewcomI
Il summers says he was IN the upper story of >cosl
furniture shop, twenty rods more away and III.
he first saw the affray looking through The windo
: and obhquey across the street; that the wIndo'
: was then let down. hat he called others, etc.
He says he saw Clark step IN front of Atkins
y heard no words; saw first respondents hand raise
, as though he was striking and "clawing" Clark
y face, shoulders throat or something; saw Car
take hold of Atkins coat collar and kick him