National Republican., 1882-04-22


the House. or Of the committee They, however,
decided that tic action could be maintained so
far rs this defendant Cfhompsou) was concerned,
as he was not member Of the House, aud there
fore not entitled TO the protection accorded mem
ber OF Congress. SO that the case now proceeds
against the defendant Crhompson) alone.
Several points have been either yielded or dis
posed of during the prrgress Of this trial The
plaintiff does not claim here that It is case call
ing for what is termed in thelaw exemplary dam
ages That is
WHERE FROM MOTIVES OF PUBLIC Foley,
the damages, beyond those which are actual, arc
allowed to be assessed against the defendant not
MS n compensation to the plaintiff, but as punish.
ment upon the icndant himself That class Of
damages is only demanded where the conduct Of
the defendant has been aggravated by malice, OF
such gross carelessncss amounts TO either fraud
or malice, and for the sake of public example.
The rule to be applied In this case il what is called
compensatory damages The only question OF
law in the case relates to the rule in regard to
damages of that character. They are tho damages
which the party has actually sustained by
the injury which has been estab-
| lished by the testimony. The Supreme Court of
the United States has decided that 70 this extent
| the mere fact that the defendant as the minis
| terial officer Of the House Of Representatives,
made the arrest, although upon an order issued
| by the House, and in regard to which the e1eeu-
fense, the ground thatthe House Of Representa-
| tyes had no authority TO make the order for the
arrest OF the plaintiff and that therefore the de-
fendant cannot justify under the process however
properly, and with however little, IL any, incon-
vcnience to tho plaintiff II was executed. The
| limit however, TO which the plaintiffs right must
| be restrained Is that of compensatory damages.
This said to be the rule Of law that is to be given
by the Court to the jury, and within this limit
there nothing but the judgment Of the jury, the
| sound discretion of the
| JURY LEFT TO FIX THE AMOUNT.
All that the Court eau do toward aiding the jury
| in reaching correct conclusion is 10 define to
| them what compensatory damages includes,
| or what It means. II moa q very much what the
word itself imports. 1t Is compensation for an
injury and It is 10 extend to the actual injury
which has been received; that injury must depend
In each particular case upon the circumstances
under which the injury was inflicted, and the
nature and character Of IT, have had occasion u
to rule in this case that compensatory damages
included nn allowance for the act by which the
plaintiff was arrested, for his imprison-
ment, for the feelings OF injury which
would naturally be produced by an act
of that kind, and for the effect which
It might have upon his health and upon his bus
iness. think those are the only particulars In
regard to which damages can be allowed, and
can aid you In coming to no conclusion as TO the
amount of damages which would be equal TO this
injury and be compensatory compensation
other than to point them out to you, and to tel
you that within that limit the plaintiff is entitled
to full compensation, and to nothing beyont
| that And that this must be decided upon tn,
testimony in the case, and that all .motivesi re
latlng to public policy,
OR PUBLIC REASONS ARE TO BE LEFT OUT OF TIL
CASE.
The plaintiff stands here claiming only what vii
| to m the iniury. nOtlin0 by
| Of example, either TO this age or to any other.
Is to be presumed that when compensatory dam
ages are allowed by the law they afford suf
! fcient example to the public, while making ful
reparation TO the party injured. With these obser
vatons submit the case for your consideration
Mr.. Smith Ito Colonel Corkhil)-Thnt is a YER
. fair charge; much fairer TO us than the intima
3 tions given yesterday by the Court as to what h
l would charge.
{ Colonel Corkhill-Yes, It is very satisfactory.
S The case was given TO the Jury at two O'Clock
At half past three Judge Macarthur said, the jur
r being still out, that If they came in by seve
It O'Clock they might send for him IL they ha
= arrived at no conclusion by that time they shoul
It return a sealed verdict in the morning. Abou
d seven o'clock the jury announced that they ha
o agreed on verdict and sent for Judge Mac
d Arthur. The usual questions were put
y them. The foreman returned verdict of $4,000
damages for the plaintiff, Colonel Corkhill wa
the only counsel present. he promptly had TN
s jury polled each answering to their names, a
n follows: william C. Murdoch (foreman), Charlie
d L. Hulse, Charles Luddington, Ludwig Eisinge
% Lemuel f. Lusby James l.. Turner, August Schroe
y der John W. Jett. Charles Auldrich, Alex J. How
Il ard, James Graham, and Thomas PaxtoI
e each member answering that they had agreed o
Is a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the dam
Ia ages at 800 900. Colonel Corkhil gave notice of
n motion for a new trial on the ground that tf
Of damages were excessive and for errors in law o
= the part of the Court.
L THE ATTORNEYS IN THE CASE.
n The attorneys originally appearing for Mr.. Ki
l. bourn in his application for writ of habeas Co
d pus were Judge Jere s. Black, Matt II. Carpent'
N d. W. voorhees,, N. L. Jeffiies, Charles A. Edredg
ID and Walter Davldge. In the further proceeding
ID III the District Court and Supreme Court of Il
W United States Mr.. Kilbourn has bee
a represented by N. L. Jeffries, Charles A. Z
d dredge, and Enoch Totten. In the recel
1t trial in the Circuit Court the acti
N attorneys. for Mr.. Kllbourn were Enoch Tote
in N. L, JefIries and d. W. Voorhees,. Ex-sergean
OF alarms Thompson has been represented duri
ne the various stages of this long contest by snmu
ty s. Shelabarger, Robert l. Christy, Judge Merri
Id of Maryland, William II. Trescot, II. Wise Garne
%, Frank Hurd, W. II. Smith, and District Attornt
1t George b. Corkhill.