The Portland daily press., 1882-04-25
THE sTRoUT CASE.
THE ARGUMENTS AND JUDGES
CHARGE.
The Jury Fail to Agree on Verdict and
are Dismissed.

A large audience filled the Supreme Court
room Yesterday morning at 9o'clock to lear
| the arguments of the counsel in the Strout
hazing case.
Charles f. Libby, Esq, for the defendants,
spoke for nearly two hours, presenting his
side of the case fully, clearly and with his well
known ability.
A. A. Strout, Esq, counsel for the plaintiff,
occupied about the same time as Mr.. Libby,
making a very strong and convincing argu-
ment. At O'Clock the court adjourned until
half past o'clock
At the opening of the court in the afternoon,
Judge Symonds proceeded to charge the jury,
occupying nearly an hour He mentioned
that matters outside of the particular case in
hand had been introduced, which, to be sure
have some bearing and will be somewhat
affected by the verdict. But the verdict ought
to be in accordance with the facts as brought
out by the testimony. He was aware of no
general question involved except the particu-
lar issue on trial A verdict for the plaintiff
would, in his opinion, be no more condemna-
ton of the practice of hazing than verdict
for the defendants. He then reviewed the
evidence in the case. The first question, he
said, is whether the plaintiff has proved that
the coal was thrown by one of the defendants
He instructed the jury that they must put out
of the consideration of this question the pre-
vious character or acts of the defendants;
whether they had taken part in previous
hazing affair, he said, does not bear on the
question of whether they committed this as
sault. In determining whether one of the de-
PENDANTS threw the coal, all the circumstances
connected with this affair must be considered.
1t is not necessary that the plaintiff shall
prove this by an eye or ear witness. The jury
must take into account the manner in which
these students came together, their situation,
their relations, what they were doing, and
what were their motives or opportunities for
committing this assault. The jury will con-
slider all the evidence carefully as to the time
which elapsed after the injury before the de-
PENDANTS made their appearance in the room in
determining whether the defendants, at tn
time of the assault had arrived n the scene OF
action. They will also consider their conduct
in the room and all other points which have
been brought out in the trial. If the jury find
that no one of the defendants threw the coal
the case fails If they find that one OF them
did throw the coal then that one alone may be
liable in the question of damages or all seven
may be liable. The second question to con-
SlQor Is, WQ6Lu0r SIX Oh Tic uSlcuu0utb arc
liable for the act of the other one. If this act
of throwing the missile was committed while
the defendants were in pursuit of this one
purpose of assault then they are all liable. But
if they really were after cider and had no de-
sign of violence, and if one of their number,
without the consent of the rest and contrary to
the object of their combination, threw the
COAL then the rest will not be liable for his act
In word enc may be liable, all may be liable
or none. If the jury find verdict for the
plaintiff, then in assessing damages they will
take into account the bodily and mental pain
suffered by the plaintiff and the injury to his
future prospects in life by this assault.
About $50 p. m. the jury retired. They de-
liberated until half past seven when supper
was furnished. About that time, it is reported,
Judge Symonds was informed there was no
chance of their agreement, and he notified the
officer in attendance upon the jury to dismiss
them if by midnight they had not arrived at
verdict. At that hour they had not yet come
to an agreement, and in pursuance of orders
they were dismissed.
1t is surmised that on the first ballot the jury
stood ten in favor of a verdict for plaintiff and
two for defendants, and this standing was
maintained on every ballot till dismissal