St. Landry democrat., 1888-04-28
FOTHERlNGHAM WINS.
ihe Adams Express Messenger Who Was
Robbed by 'Iim Cummings" Awarded
$4,000 Damages for Illegal Detention
a Blow at the Pinkerton System of Hold

Robbed by ".Bim Cummings" Awarded
$4,000 Damages for Illegal Detention
n BLOW at the Pinkerton System of Hold
ing Men without Due Process of Law.
ST. LOUIS, April 20.-The jury that tried
the damage suit of David S. Fotheringhan
against the Adams Express Company in
the United States Court, was instructed
by Judge Thayer yesterday morning, the
following being a synopsis of the charge
The Court, in his charge. said it would be well
Tor the jury to keep the distinction between the
raise Imprisonment count and the two mali
clous prosecution counts in the plaintiff
petition clearly in mind. A person deprived
OF his liberty by private individual ordina-
flly mad a right of action against all persons
or corporations participating IN such arrest or
| ueprlVlng him OF his liberty. This general rule
| Of law was subject to the exception that a pri-
! Vate lndlvldual knowing that felony had
| been committed. might arrest the person be-
lRved by a reasonable man to be-the felon. and
hold him until warrant could be obtained
from 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 26, 1886 un-
til November 9, 1885. 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 II the evidence further satisfied the twelve
men that such restrait was caused. procured or
inst1gated by the defendant or agents of de
iendant acting at its dlctation or under its
authority.
! The Court defined what constituted an arrest
! and illegal restraint of ones liberty. If 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
4 recover rnRc than Sha
| Jury ought to regard such facts not as
| justification OF the arrest without warrant, but
| IN mitigation of the damages which it might
| otherwise assess The defendant claimed that
| from October s6, 1885, to Monday, November 5.
| 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 s, 1886. when the
plaintiff manifested desire to 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 CT turning him
over to the officers of the law. The instruc-
ton being, that if 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 right Of action fer 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 a criminal prosecution which
resulted in acquittal only in the event that
1t was made to appear that in SO doing
he acted both malicously 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 a preponderance
OF evidence that the defendant caused, procured
or nstigated the finding and subsequent prose
cution Of the indictments, and that in SO doing
it acted both maliciously and without reason
able and probable cause tor believing him
guilty.
But if the plaintiff showed that the defend
ant had so acted both malicously and without
probable cause, then he was entitled to q yer-
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 |
corporation, could only act by agents, be |
bound or rendered liable by acts of |
agents authorized to act for 1T, and the |
acts, motives and beliefs of w. II. Damsell |
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 q |
natural person.
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 |
against the plaintiff and the subsequent pro-
ceedings thereon in the Criminal Court in this
city? In so doing, if it did cause, procure or in
stigate the prosecutions, did the defendant act |
without reasonable and probable cause as here
tofore defined? Did the defendant act malici-
ously as well as without reasonable causes An
answer to either of the three |
questions would entitle the defendant to
a 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 |
TO assess his damages, and he should be allowed
n that behalf compensation for time while lost |
n confinement and for all time necessarily con-
'umed in defending himself against the prose-
buttons and in preparing to defend himself and |
for all disbursements made or |
liabilities necessarily incurred in defending
himself, including his counsel fees, also reason
sble compensation for any mental anxiety or
eeHngS OF shame and degradation expe- |
fenced in consequence of being confined in Jail
With criminals and being prosecuted as a Grim
nal.
1t was within the discretion Of the jury to al
ow such exemplary or punitive damages as it
hought the defendant ought to be punished
With. The instructions closed with an adnoni-
ion to the jury to be impartial and fair.
The jury went out at 1850 o'clock and
eturned with verdict at 2:25 p. m. 1t
ound for the plaintiff on the first count,
hat for false imprisonment and assessed
he damage at 200. The finding in the
econd and third counts was for the de-
endant. These last two counts were those
harging malicious prosecution on the
wo indictments that were found against
'otheringham.
Fotheringham was in court when the
erdict came in, and he showed no emo
ion. He is aremarkably- cool young man
nder any circumstances. Governor
ohnson said he thought the Adams Ex-
ress Company would not appeal, as the :.
erdict was too small to 60 to that ex- .
ense. The company would probably , !.
refer to pay the money. One ground of !.
ppeal might be on the exceptions to
lie rulings of the Court, but as
lese were remarkably fair the
hances for the company in that direction )
ould be very slim. When Fotheringham ).
avs his lawyers good fee he will still 5,
ave neat little sum left upon which to :
,ake a. start in life q little more linda. |