The Russellville Democrat. [volume] (Russellville, Ark.) 1875-1898, 1888-04-26
FOTHERiNGHAM WINS.

|
| The Adams Express Messenger who Was
/ Robbed by .sJim CumIiiingss' Awarded
4 $4,000 Damages for Illegal Detention
| A Blow Mt the Pinkerton system of Hold
| ing Men without Due Process of Law.
/ ST.. LOUIS, April 2o.--The jury that tried
| the damage suit of David s. Fotheringham
| against the Adams Express Compaffy in
/ the United States Court, was instructed
by Judge Thayer yesterday morning, the
following being synopsis OF the charge:
The Court in his charge, said IL would be well
4 for the jury 10 keep the distinction between the
/ false imprisonment count and the two mali
4 cious prosecution counts In the ple!ss:...sseez
1 petition clearly in mind. pnrsSn deprived
OF his liberty by a private individual ordina-
sriiss aasi right OF action against all persons
or corporations participating IN such arrest or
deprving him OF his liberty. This general rule
4 OF law was subject 10 the exception that pri-
| yate individual, knowing that d felony had
| been committed, might arrest the person be
! lieved by reasonable man to be the felon, anu
hold him until warrant could be obtained
from o proper court or magistrate, and no
/ longer The plaintiff could not lawfully be
held in custody and deprived Of his freedom at
the Southern Hotel from October s6, 1886, un-
| til November o, 1886 The Court directed
| the return OF verdict for the plaintiff
| II the evidence satisfied the jury that the
| restraint during the period in question was
| without plaintiffs consent and against his WILL
and If the evidence further satisfied the twelve
| men that such restratt caused procured or
/ instigated by the defendant agents OF de-
fendant acting at its dictation or under its
| authority.
/ The Court defined what constituted an arrest
/ ahd 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
/ Giscovpr nj N crime and
! TO recover the stoltn funds then the
| jury ought to regard such facts not as a
| justification of the arrest without warrant, but
| in mitigation OF the damages which it might
| otherwise assess The defendant claimed that
| from October 20, 1885, to Monday, November s,
| the plaintiff remained at the Southern Hotel
| with the detectives and elsewhere of his own
| free will and consent to aid them in the dis
| covery OF the robber or robbers. 1t claimed
| further that on November :, 1896, when the
| plaintiff manifested desire 20 leave the com
| pany of the detectives that he was then de-
| tanned because the detectives had been advised
| Of the finding OF an indictment against the
plaintiff, and that the detention thereafter
| was solely for the purpose Of turning him
| over to the officers of the law. The instrue-
| tion being, that il 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 or were con
| cerned in the prosecution. A person became
| liable TO respond in damages for insti-
| eating o criminal prosecution which
| resulted in acquittal only in the event that
| il 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
| they must find for the defendant in both the
| second and third counts, although the plaintiff
| was innocent Of the crimes charged in the two
| indictments against him, unless the plaintiff
| had succeeded in showing by preponderance
| OF evidence that the defendant caused, procured
| or ifstigated the finding and subsequent prose
cution of the indictments, and that in so doing
| IL acted both malciously and without reason
able and probable cause tor believing him
| guilty. zrn fas-
But IL the plaintiff showed that the defend
| ant had so acted both malieously and without
probable cause, then he was entitled to aver
| dict on both the second and third counts for
| such damages as the evidence showed he had
sustained. They ought to judge OF the cause
! defendant had for acting as it did, and Of its
motives at any stage Of the prosecutions, in
| the light of facts and circumstances then
known to it. The Adams Express Company, a
| corporation, could only act by agents, be
bound or rendered liable by acts of
I agents authorized to act for II, and the
/ acts, motives and beliefs of w. II. Damsell
and r. A. Pinkerton ut 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. e..ats sr e if sr
The jury was TO 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
,SIn and gtthe
ceedngs thereon in the Criminal Court in this
citys In so doing If it did cause, procure or in
stgate the prosecutions, did the defendant act
without reasonable and probable cause as here
tofore defnedl Did the defendant act malici-
ously as well as without reasonable eauseg An
affirmative answer to either of the three
questions would entitle the defendant TO
verdict on both of said counts.
In the event of finding for the plaintiff on the
second and third counts it was the jury's duty
toassess his damages, and he should be allowed
/ inthat behalf compensation for time while lost
in confinement and for all time necessarily con-
sumed in defending himself against the prose-
cutions and in preparing TO defend himself, and
compensation for all disbursements made or
liabilities necessarily incurred in defending
himself, including his counsel fees, also reason
able compensation for any mental anxiety or
feelings OF shame and degradation expe-
rieneed in consequence OF being confined in Jail
with criminals and being prosecuted rs a Grim
inal.
1t was within the discretion of the jury to al
low such exemplary or punitive damages as it
thought the defendant ought to be punished
with. The instructions closed with an admon
tion to the jury to be impartial and fair.
The Jury went out at 1850 O'Clock and
returned with verdict at 2:25 p. m. Ii
found for the plaintiff on the first count,
that for false Imprisonment, and assessed
the damage at 1000. The finding in the
second and third counts was for the de-
fendant. These last two counts were those
charging malicious prosecution on the
two indictments that were found against
Fotheringham.
Fotheringham was in court when the
verdict came in, and he showed no emo
ton. He is remarkably cool 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 70 that ex-
pense. The company would probably
prefer TO pay the money. One ground Of
appeal might be on the exceptions 10
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 win still
have q neat little sum left upon which TO
make a start in life a little more inde-
pendent than in the position Of an ex-
press messenger. Mrs. Roote, his moth
er, who has spark OF retIibution in her
nature.
Gilhooly and Cox.
DUBLIN, April 20.-Mr. Gilhooly, NJ r.,
who was sentenced on March 10 two
months imprisonment for offenses under
the Crimes act, had his sentence reduced
to-day, on appeal, to two weeks Mr.. Gill
hooIy has been Sowing q short torn OF