Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1888-04-26
FoTHERiNGHAM WINS.

/ Robbed Awarded
5000 Damages for Illegal Detention
Blow at the Pfnkerton System OF Hold
ing Men without Due Process Of Law.
ST.. LOUIS, April 20.-The jury that tried
| the damage suit of David S. Fotheringham
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 IL would be well
for the jury TO keep the distinction between the
/ false imprisonment count and the two mali
cIous prosecution counts in the plaintiffs
petition clearly in mind. person deprived
| of his liberty by private individual ordina-
rilv had. a right OF action against all persons
] or corporations participating IN such arrest or
! depriving him of his liberty. This general rule
! of law was subject to the exception that pr1-
| vate individual, knowing that felony had
/ been committed, might arrest the person be-
lieved by reasonable man to be the felon. ana
/ hold him until warrant could be obtained
! from a proper court or magistrate, ana no
| longer The plaintiff could not Lawful ly be
held in custody and deprived OF his freedom at
| the Southern Hotel from October %, 1886. I'M
! till November 0, 1886. The Court directed
| the return of verdict for the plaintiff
| If 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 restrait was caused, procured or
instigated by the defendant or agents OF de-
PENDANT 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 L
discover other participants in the crime ant
to the stolen funds, then the
jury ought to regard such facts not as
justification of the arrest without warrant, but
in mitigation of the damages which 1t might
9th defendant
from October 20, 1886, to Monday. November 8,
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 &, 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 indictment against the
plaintiff, and that the detention thereafte
solely for the purpose OF turning him
over to the officers of the law. The instruc.
ton being, that if the testimony satisfied tn
Jury that such contention represented the true
tate 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 CIR me. and had been acquitted, did not
give him right of action for damages against
the person or persons who caused or were con-
cerned in the prosecution. person became
liable to respond in damages for insti-
eating criminal prosecution which
resulted in acquittal only in the event TIT
it was made to appear that in so doing
he acted both maliciously and without reason
able and probable cause for believing that tn
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
ofa tho lafa 6ay1to cai
or instigated 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 maliciously and without
probable cause, then he entitled to 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 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, q
corporation, could only act by agents, be
bound or rendered liable by acts OF
agents authorized to act for it, and the
acts. motives and beliefs of w. H. Damsell
and r. A. Pinkerton at the time in question
were the acts, motives and beliefs Of the COM
pany to the same extent though 1T was q
natural person
The jury was to determine from the evidence
the questions arising unOer the second ana
third counts. Did the defendant cause, procure
or instigate the finding of the indictments
against the plaintiff and the subsequent pro-
ceedngs thereon in the Criminal Court in this
city? In doing. IL 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 cause? An
affirmative answer to either Of the three
questions would entitle the defendant to
a
In the event of frding for the plaintiff ON the
second and third UNITS it was the jury's duty
to assess his damages, and he should be allowed
in that 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 axpe.
rienced in consequence of being confined II. jail
with criminals and being prosecuted as Grim.
inal.
It was within the discretion of the Jury 70 al.
low such exemplary or punitive damages as it
thought the defendant ought to be punished
with. The instructions closed with an admoni.
ton to the jury to be impartial and fair.
The jury went out at 1850 O'Clock and
returned with verdict at 1925 p. m. II
found for the plaintiff on the first count,
that for false imprisonment, and assessed
the damage at $4,000 The finding in the
second and third counts was for the de-
PENDANT. 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 a 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 to that ex-
pense. 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 neat little sum left upon which 10
make start in life little more inde-
pendent than in the position of an ex.
press messenger. Mrs. Roote, his moth
er, who has spark Of retribution in her
nature.
Threaten to Extcnd the Strike,
BRADDocK, Pa, April 20.-The Knights
OF Labor have positively determined notNA