The Russellville Democrat., 1881-12-01
A TEXANS DEMAND.
Two KenfuckIans Sued For Maliciou
 Prosecution.

Two Kentuckians Sued For nTaliciou
 Prosecution.
 The suit of George R. Angel against James and Walter Lamb for $25, ,000 was tried in the United States circuit court yesterday ndEunderperemptory inslruc tons from Judge Barr the iury returned a verdict for the defendant, James Lamb, Before the trial began the suit was&dis- missed as to Walter. The defendants are citizens of Logan county, and the circumstances out of winch the case arose are rather novel. About six years ago the plaintiff, George Angel, lived in Logan county. He bought horse from tne defendant, James Lamb, who is the father of his co-defendant, Walter Lamb. Angel paid bim fifty dollars in cash and gave his note for the other fifty. He signed the note in the presence of the old man; and also sighned his fathers and brothers names, telling Lamb he had previously received their authority to do so. Soon afterward Angel went to Texas and when the note became due Lamb presented it to the elder Angel for payment. He refused to pay it, de- uyine fhst De as.aa gwen his son permis- ssiesi to sign his name. Lamb brought suit against him in magistrates court and on the trial of the case old man Angel substantiated his denial on oath. The magistrate decided in his favor and gave iudQment against Lamb for costs Time passed on, and last February young Angel returned from Texas to visit his parents. At this time the grand jury was in session at Russllville, and one ot it's memb bers was Waiter Lamb. Just be- fire adiourningtbe question was propoun- dedby the foremanto eacn Of the rand jurors concerning his personal Knosl- cdge,of any offense which had been committed in the county. Lamb hsd seen Angel on the street, and the events of five or six years before suddenly oe- cured to him, and, In response to in- quiry of the foreman, he laid the facts be- fore the jury His father was summon- ed. and an indictment against Angel foi forperyiwas returned. He was arrested and brought to trial, when his father, who had testified in the suit on the trial that he had given his son no authority to sign his name, came into court and i,l bis evidence admitted that he had thus sworn before, but sBid that after going home and consulting with his family bout the matter they had called his al- tention to certain incidents, which se- lreshed his memory concerning the Cir eunistances, and he had become convinc. cd that he had conferred upon his son power to. make his signature. Under 1 this evidence the jury found young An gel not guilty, and he then brought suit against the Lambs for malicious prose | 'cfation.s As mentioned before, the case IS to ibe. younger was dismissed, be- cause, as-a grand juror, he could not be prosecuted for his part in the affair. The elder filled an answer, setting up that there was probable cause for the finding ofthe indictment, and thls was sustained by the Droof which caused the judge tc instruct the jury as he did. One admira' ble feature about the caseFwas the celer ity with which it was disposed of Il was filed on the 14th of September, a little over month ago, the pleading: completed, the case set, witnesses sum, moned and trial had, unhampered bS any oi the delays which usually make the progress of a case in court almost ill terminable, Ifsome definite disposition were thus quicsly made of all cases, . great impeachment in the obtaining c speedy and perfect justice would be re | moved.