Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1880-09-09

In the Superior Court last week the trial
of jury cases closed with the following cases:
| Anna Mccormick vs. John d. BGtJaW and
others, was an action for false imprisonment
in Bridgeport. 1t appears thai Ba;au, WHO
| is large real estate owner in that place. had
rented the plaintiff rooms, the rent of which
she failed to pay and was elected. A suit was
| then begun against her for rent, by one Ste
venson, to whom, he and Badau both swear,
| the latter made a gift of the claim Mrs.
| Mccormick refused to turn out property to be
taken on attachment, and suit was begun
against her for fraudulent concealment of
property from attachment, in the name of
Badau, but in the interest, he claims, of Ste
| venson. In this suit, however, Badau was
recognized in bond for prosecution, without
his knowledge, as Stevenson swore, who him
elf signed the writ as commissioner of the
Superior Court. Execution was taken out against
Mrs. Mccormick and was put into
the hands of Baker, city Sheriff, who arrested
her, put her in the station house for while
(the witnesses differ as to the time), and fin
ally carried her to the county jail. Before
serving the execution, Baker went to Badau,
and both swear that the latter told him he had
nothing to do with the claim, that it was
Just one, but that he must be careful. The
Bridgeport station house in which the plain
tiff was first placed was admitted to be a very
oh 10 nj ho, NIL
criminal in the next cell, and it was in other
respects extremely offensive When the
plaintiff had closed her testimony, the de-
PENDANT moved a nonsuit in behalf of the de-
PENDANT Badau, but the court refused to grant
it. The plaintiffs counsel claimed that all
the circumstances of the case proved that Ba-
dau was the man who in reality had the de-
PENDANT arrested and shut in the station house.
Badau's counsel claimed. however, that he
had nothing whatever to do with it. The
Judge charged the jury that the arrest of the
plaintiff was proper and in pursuance of the
execution in the hands os the officer, but that
her detention in the station house was unlaw-
full. The jury brought in a verdict of $500
against both defendants. The judge thought
there was too slight evidence against Badau
to warrant their verdict, and sent the jury
back twice. They PERSISTED, however, in
their verdict, which was finally recorded.
The defendants then moved for new trial
for verdict against evidence. Andrews and
Rorabach for plf. Fem and Lockwood for
defts
On Thursday the case of Samuel NJ Ensign
vs. Horace Coaoles for malicious prosecution
commenced, land occupied that and the follow
ing day in trial. The case grew out of the at
tempt of the defendant to impound a cow of
the plaintiffs. The defendant had been ap-
pointed hayward of the town of Morris in
October 1878. He was informed by the town
clerk that his duty began forthwith, and he
and the other hay wards gave notice to peo-
pie to keep their cattle out of the street. On
the day before the taking of the plaintiffs
cow, Mr.. Rollin F. Kilborn, who had also
been appointed ayward called upon the de-
fendent to assist him in taking up the plain
tiffs cattle which were allowed to 60 at large
that Cowles should come over the following
morning. This he did. The plaintiff MIXED
his cows in his yard, and one of them went
out into the street where it was taken up by
the defendant, though at the time on the land
Of the plaintiff. The plaintiff rescued the
COW from the defendant. The latter then
came to Litchfeld and laid the facts before
counsel, who advised him that complaint
for rescue would lie, and drew up such COM
plant. The defendant took it to grand
juror, stating the facts, and the grand juror
signed the complaint Defendant then took it
to justice who issued warrant and thence
to the officer who served tho papers on the
plaintiff The case was tried before Justice
Benton, who found the plaintiff guilty of
rescue, and imposed the statute penalty of 81.
The plaintiff appealed, and, on trial before
the Superior Court, was acquitted, the court
charging that Cowles had no right to take
up the COW on the plaintiffs land
The foregoing facts were proved at last weeks
trial also, that the plf was in the habit of
frequently allowing his cattle to run &C large
in the Streets and that he had been notified
| not to do so. Witnesses were also examined
| on the part of the defence who impeached the
plaintiffs character for truth, and,on the part
| of the plaintiff who sustained it. The plain
| tiff claimed, and the defendant denied, that
the latter had sought the appointment of hay
ward with view of impending the plf's.
| cattle. The plaintiff further claimed that the
Defendants term of Office had not actually
commenced at the time he took the plf's cow,
which was admitted, but the deft. claimed he
| had understood and believed that it had then
commenced. The plaintiff maintained gener-
ally that the defendant had acted with malice
and without probable cause in having him
prosecuted, all which the defendant denied.
The judge charged that the question was in
the main one of INTENT that if the deft. sup
posed his term as hayward had begun; had
supposed he had just cause to take up the
plf's COW and had reasonable ground to sup
pose that the pf. ought to be prosecuted, he
was entitled to verdict; otherwise, not. The
jury disagreed. .Hollister and Kilbourn for
plf. Hickox and Kellogg, for def.
On Tuesday OF this week the court came in
for trial of court cases. All the early cases
assigned had been settled, however, and the
court adjourned tall Tuesday of next week.
| - .s.a. ---------------- : - 4l-.s . 20
@ -. . Cornwall Il 81 Z.