Oxford eagle. (Oxford, Lafayette Co., Miss.) 1876-current, 1888-04-26
FOTHERInohAM WINS.
The Adams EXPRESS Nes.srze- Who was
Robbed by .'Jlm Cummings" Awarded
5000 Damages for Illegal Detention
A Blow at the Finkerton system Of Hold
ing Men Without Due Process. Of Law


eco. 900 Damages for Illegal Detention
A Blow at the FInk-rton system OF Hold
ting Men without Due Process. Of Law.
81. fotIs, April ~. The jury that tried
the damage suit of David ). Fotheringham
against the Adams Express Company in
the United States Court. was instructed
by Judge Thayer yesterday morning. the
following being synopsis ot the charge;
Fhs coart. ~ his caarse, laid 4 'rosit b ~tl
Tor the jury TO keep the distinction between the
false Imprisonment count and the two malt.
ctous prosecution counts in the plalntiIs
petition clearly In mind. A person deprived
ot his liberty b~ private indieidual ordua.
tily had a right OF action against ali persons
or corporations participating IN such arrest or
dcprtving him Of his liberty. This general rule
OF law was subject to the exception that q pri
vate individual. knowing that felony had
been committed might arrest the person he
ltevcd by reasonable man to he the felon and
bold him until n warrant could be obtai med
rom proper court or magistrate. and no
'ons-r Tre piain,i1 cohid not inwfu y be
held IN custody and deprived OF his freedom At
the Southern Hotel from October u, isss. IN
I'll November ., iSss The Court directed
the return OF verdict for the plaintiff
IL the evidence satisfied the Jury that the
restraint during the pcriod in question was
without plaintiff : consent aud against his will
api If the evidence further satisfied the twelve
instigsted by the defendant or agents OF de-
fendant acting at us dietation or under its
authority
The Court defined what constituted an arrest
and Illegal restraint Of ones liberty. II the
defendant acted in the pursuance Of the be-
lief that plaintiff participated In stealing the
money. thinking his detention necessary to
discover other participants in the crime and
TO recover the stolen funds. then the
jury ought 10 regard such facts not rs a
Justification OF the arrest without warrant, but
in mitigation Of the damages which II might
otherwise assess. The defendant claimed that
from October 20. isss TO Monday, November =
the plaintiff remained ut the Southern Hotel
with the detectives, and elsewhere Of his own
free will and consent TO aid them In tho dis
covery of the robber or robbers. 1t claimed
further that on November = 1896. when the
plaintiff manifested desire TO leave the com
pany Of the detectives, that he was then de
taincd because the detectives had been advised
of the finding OF indictment against the
plaintiff, and that the detention thereafter
was solely for the purpose ~ turning him
over to the officers OF the law, The instruc-
tion being, that II the testimony satisfied the
Jury that such contention represented the true
state Of the case, verdict for the defendant
| on the first count should be returned. As TO
the second and third counts OF the petition, the
malicious Prosecution counts, the mere fact
that an Individual had been prosecuted for an
alleged crime. and had been acquitted, did not
| give him a right Of action for damages against
the person or persons who caused CT were con
cerned in the prosecution. person became
liable 10 respond in damages for insti-
| eating criminal prosecution which
| resulted in acquittal only in the event that
| It was made to appear that in so doing
he acted both maliciously and without reason
| able and probable cause for believing that the
| party accused was guilty. The result was that
4 mus nd fnr he tpf In hot h.
second and third counts. although the plaintiff
was innocent OF the crimes charged IN the two
| indictments against him. unless the plaintiff
hal succeeded in showing by rreponderance
/ of evidence that the defendant caused procured
| or instigated the finding and subsequent prose
/ sutton OF the indictments, and that in so doing
6. acted both maliciously and without reason
able and probable cause for believing him
L guilty
| But IL the plaintiff showed that the defend
| ant had 80 acted both malieiously and without
i probable cause, then he was entitled to n yer
dict on both the second and thirt. counts for
such damages ms the evidence showed he had
sustained. They ought TO judge of the cause
| defendant had for acting as IL did and OF its
l motives At any stage OF the prosecutions, in
the light of facts and circumstances then
known TO IL. The Adams Express Company, a
| corporation, could only act by agents. be
| bound or rendered liable by acts of
| agents authorized TO net for it, and the
| acts, motives and beliefs OF W. III. Dansell
| and r. A. Pinkerton at the time in question
| were the acts, motives and beliefs of the com
pany TO the same extent as though 1t was a
| natural person.
The jury was 20 determine from the evidence
the questions arising under the second and
| third counts. Did the defendant cause. procure
| or instigate the finding OF the indictments
| against the plaintiff and the subsequent pro.
| ceedings thereon in the Criminal Court in this
cityf In so doing, IL II did cause, procure in
| stigate the prosecutions did the defendant act
| without reasonable and probable cause as here
tofove definedy Did the defendant act malici-
| ously a. we'll as without reasonable causes An
| Affirmative answer TO either of the three
questions would entitle the defendant u
| verdict both OF said counts.
In tn. event OF finding for the plaintif on the
secord and third counts II was the iury's duty
TO assess his damages, and he should be allowed
in tina. behalf compensation for time while los,
| In confinement and for all time necessarily con
sumec in defending himself against the prose
cotious and in preparing TO defend himself, and
compensation for all disbursements made or
liabilities necessarily incurred in defending
| himself inciud ng his counsel fees, also reason
able compensation for any mental anxiety OF
feelings OF shame and degradation exre
| rtenced In Consequence OF being confined In jail
with criminals and being prosecsted as a Grim
inai.
~
low such exemplary or punitive damages as II
thought the defendant ought TO be punished
With. The instructions closed with admoni-
tion 10 the jury 10 be impart al and fair.
The jury went out a. 10.50 o'clock and
returned with a verdict at 2:25 p. m. II
found for the plaintiff on the first count.
that for false imprisonment, and assessed
the damage at Se0,0o0. The finding In the
second and third counts was for the de-
feudant. These last two counts were those
charging malicious prosecution on the
two indictments that were found against
Fotheringham.
Fotheringham was in court when the
==T.:. =-=T.s.tt -sIIis n, and ie s.ss-xi no 5I.Io-
ton. He is aremarkably-coolyO young man
under any circumstances. Governor
johnson said he thought the Adams Ex-
press Company would not appeal, as the
verdict was too small TO go TO that ex-
penss. The company would probably
prefer to pay the money. One ground OF
appeal might be on the exceptions to
the rulings Of the Court, but as
these were remarkably fair the
chances for the company in that direction
would be very slim. When Fotheringham
pays his lawyers a good fee he will still
have a neat little sum left upon which to
make a start in life little more inde-
pendent than in the position Of an ex-
press messenger. Mrs. Roote, his moth
er. who has a spark OF retributiOn in her
nature.
|
GIlhooiy and Cox.
DUBLIN, April 20.-Mr. Gilhooly, ". p,
| who was sentenced on March to two
months imprisonment for offenses under