The daily gazette., 1882-05-18
THE COURTNEY CASE.
GIVEN TO THE JURY COURT
TO-DAY.
CHARGE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
The Case Nearly Concluded-Minor Busl
ness In the Superior Court-To-day'l
Proceedings.

| When court reassembled at 3 O'Clock YES.
terday afternoon the Courtney case was re-
sumed and Mr.. Spruance consumed half an
hour In closing. He endeavored to explain
away the alleged conspiracy to thrash Mr..
Tatnall. He said in the course of his adj
dress that the jury ought not TO encourage
iingation against rich men by placing q
| premium ON slander.
Mr.. Lore commenced at 1886. He said he
could not expect to equal the eloduence Of
the defendants counsel, but wished to deal
with plain facts not to swing in the legal
circles with all the power that Henry Ward
beeeher exercised in the moral world, but
TO dwell In the true world of facts and
| speaking in reply to the peaceful and
delightful home of the Courtneys, (holdinR
the cat-o'-nine tails in his handy as pictured
by Mr.. Spruance, he said "There is the
evidence of music in the air, and the tender
words Give him hi, Kate is further proof
of the beautiful home in that garden of
moonlight and lotus flowers"
Mr.. Lore then went on in an amusing wav
to the entertainment of full court room
and finished at 4.35. The Court, because OF
sickness of Mr.. Cleaver's brother-in-law dis
charged the Tatnan jury until tomorrow at
10 o'clock. Mr.. Henry r. Dupont was ap-
pointed commissioner ON motion of w. T..
Whitley, Esq, to take deposition In the case
(libcl for divorced of Margaret Welsh VS..
Francis Welsh. In the case of Sbarpless a.
Sons VS.. Henry f. Robelen and Ella Robelen
an action in the case, judgment was con
fessed by the defendant, amount to be ascer-
tanned by counsel. Bird for plaintiff, Lore
and Emmons for defendant. In the case
(appeaD of Diamond State Iron Company,
VS.. Jacob Hardenfelder, Judgment was given
Tor appellant for costs. Same vs.. Patrick
'O'Brfen and same vs.. Peter Newman, judg-
ment was given for plaintiff below; amount
to be aseertained by Prothonotary. .Tl.
The case of the Union American Circle of
Friendship VS.. James II. Duckery was de-
cided for plaintiff, to the amount of SS75.
Gray for plaintiff, Nields for defendant.
The mortgage held by A. Dicks against
Jesse Bingham valid was recognized as
and ordered to be paid ~
The next trial was an action on a promis-
sorry note for $500, with interest from
August, 1880. Patrick Brogan, defendant,
represented by MIR. Vallandigham, Hiett
Graham, plaintiff, represented by Mr..
Cooper. Plea in defense (with other sham
pleas) was drunkenness. The court ruled
in this case that ON plea of 'non assumpsit''
any defense could under decisions in this
State be offered In evidence. The Jury rem
dercd verdict for $780, 20, the sum claimed.
The case of Philadelphia Iron and Steel
Co. VS.. Bowers, Dure q Co. was referred.
Nields for plaintiff, Bates and Harrington
for defendant. rRFEf~7 r
Court adjourned until to-day ct 10 O'Clock.
THIS MORNINGS sEssToN-THE CHIEF JUS
TICE, IN THE COURTNEY CASE, CHARGES
THE JURY ON THE LAW.
Court opened at 10 o'clock to-day, and the
Court, Chief Justice Comegeys, proceeded
to charge the jury in the case of Tatnall VS..
Courtney. After stating the case he stated
the law as follows:
]. No words merely, whether spoken or
printed or written, however insulting or op-
probious they may be, will justify an as
sault and battery, or an assault even. There
lore, where an action is brought to recover
damages for an assault and battery the
plaintiff is entitled to recover verdict for a
nominal sum, although he has not made
proof of any actual injury, the law pre-
suming that he has received some damage
2. Where the plaintiff proves that he
sustains actual damage by the defendants
attack, he is entitled to recover as much in
value as his proof showed he suffered, what
ever the amount may be.
3. When the plaintiff shows that the at
tack upon him was wanton or malicious
without any provocation, and the wrong in
ilicted was grievous, the jury may give him
damages without reference to actual injury.
Such damages are in the reasonable discre-
tion of the jury, in view of all facts and cir
cumstances proved. When thus given they
are not mere compensation to the plaintiff
but are called punitory, vindictive or
exemplary, and are by way of public ex-
ample or punishment.
4. In estimating these damages, the jury
may take into account, and should consider
the circumstances of time and place of the
of fhn - IL
the plaintiff, suffering OF body and mind,
and any other fact that enhanced to his in
jury, and they may consider the pecuniary
means of the defendant in awarding them.
3. That while the jury in a case of mali
cious assault and battery may give eXem-
plary damages and fix them by considering
the defendants circumstances, as one of the
element Of their calculation, yet the punish
ment thus inflicted by them or the example
made should bear some proper relation to
the main fact,and not or merely arbitrary.
In actions of assault and battery, when
exemplory damages are claimed, the defen-
dant may, in mitigation of them exhibit to
the jury any relevant facts, showing reasona-
provocation. This is not in justification of
the assault, but to negative the allegation
of malice, and if the proyocation be very
great, and was to resent or to lead to the
that it was committed under
excited, the jury will be
in regulating the amount accord |
ingly, but the jury should be well satisfied |
that the assault was the offspring of the |
plaintiffs bet, and that there was no time |
for it to cool down.
z. In the case now ON trial the jury are |
by the testimony, if they credit |
it, in giving exemplary or punitive damages
against the defendant unless they find that |
the newspaper article in evidence was |
calculated to excite and did excite violent |
passion In the defendant, and that under its |
immediate influence he committed the |
assault. But, if ON the contrary they should |
either find that the article was not calcu-
lted to have any such effect, or IL
II were so calculated, yet the blood of the
defendant had sufficient time to cool, and
that Mt the time of the attack he was acting
under the influence, not of impulsive, un-
passion, but of revenge, then
his act was malicious, and is punishable
with a verdict of exemplary damages, and
The publication is no poaliation and no miti-
eating circumstance in the. award of
damages.
Tho inru rof;vo1 ot IN 05