Telegram-herald., 1889-10-12
WATKINS MULCTED
johnson Secures Verdict For
slSSS.
CESEvERESS LAYSDOWNIHELlW
Fhs Case Goes - the 1UFy After iinnsf
sad Between fAree and feer ho9fs
After They Render : ersiict -1eAt
"a she . uase's Ca&rge-

te-t lal-etltA tlt.i al = Atli-+i-r totA-~-'f
forenoon. Tee jadge charged tae gary
Immediately after DINNER, and the Jars
after being o0t between three and toof
hours brought verdict la favor of
Johnson for sls5.
The charge ot Judge ssvolens was q
very exhaustive one. and practically
decided ghe ease. owing 90 the gfeat
interest b tAc ease i is herewith re-
produced m iulE
Gontlem en ~ tbe Juy The plain
IN lu THIS ta-t .Ucs 90 recover Tor dail-
ages alleged o. have been sustained by
him in consequence 0f an order made
by the defendant that the plaintiff
should be strapped ln punishment Tor
some alleged oliense against the prison.
rules by tac plaintiff Whllt confined .n
the House uf Correction al Iona,
whereof the defendant was warden.
There ls no controversy in gegard 50
some Ot the facts, fof instance, these,
that the plaintiff was an inmate, law
fully confined M the House ot (Ouec-
ton, that the defendant was the war
den thereof. that, as sucn warden, De-
E
be punished hy the lnHiCuon OF twenty
strars, which were understood 10 mean
and intend 20 many straps upon the
bare body; that tins punishment WAS
ordered bv the defendant 60 he inflicted
p in consequence of an otiense against
! the prison rules. whereof the plaintiff
was charged, and OF which the doien-
/ dant found the plaintiff 10 Doc guilty.
.l.f "a d
among others ia his defense:
]. That he acted IN a quasi judicial
/ capacity IN determining whether the
plaintiff was guilty of the alleged iuirac-
/ ton Of the PRISON rules, and that
whether he determined that question
| right or wrOng-hels not liable tor any
thing done ~ determining II.
.. lie also claims that he, the de
/ fendant, also acted III the ike capacity
IN determining the punishment which
should be inflicted upon las finding
that an Otfense had been committed.
AS 70 the first OF these claims / IN
struct YOU that the defendant is sus-
tanned by the law, namely, that be had
/ full power 10 determine IN a judicial
way whether the plaintiff had commit
| ted an otiense. and for the exercise OF
that power he is not responsible, even
if he made a mistake III determining
such question.
But his claim in regard to the second
proposition cannot be admitted III the
extent to which he asserts II.
The defendant had the power and
authority 10 determine what punish
menr he would impose, provided he
did not transcend the limits which the
law put around him-within those Inn
It's he could choose the punishment he
| would order-but If he imposed a pun
| ishment which he was forbidden 10 ad-
minister or authorize. he responsible
a a trespasser. His Office IN that case
would be no protection or shield e
him. This distinction Is important
The power TO determine the question
OF quilts one thing; the power 10 de-
cree punishment is another. The war
den possessed the first power fully: the
second he possessed only n qualified
way. He could punish within tht
bounds prescribed by law. he could
not impose a sentence OF punishment
outside those bounds.
a man VINO goes under sentence e
the states prison is still under the pro
lection of the law, subject 10 the oh
legation TO undergo the penalties Of tn,
sentence-he is entitled 10 invoke al
the safeguards which the constitution
and laws OF the State afford nm. tn,
prisoner Is not an outlaw. No persOr
can impose upon INN a violence unwar
ranted 10y law, and no pretense Of ne
ccssitl for such proceeding can justify
it or furnish any defense for Tcsortiu.
to it. The law of the land admits ns
such plea; nor does the long cOntnu
ance OF an illegal practice give It valid
, lty.
The vital question, therefore, upor
which the liability Of the defendan
turns in TINS case Is this: Was the pun
ishmcnt which the defendant ordere,
the plaintiff to undergo within or with
out the bounds of his authority?
You must understand what thos
, bounds are. 1t Is the province ant
duty OF the court 10 state and defin
them to the jury.
Counsel have stated 10 YOU in th
course of argument what they claim {,
be the law applicable 10 some brancho
OF the case. Instead of mterruptnl
1 counsel and thereby embarras D.
/ them. l have thought fit 20 refrain un
tl this time, and ] now instruct vO'
/ that II Is your duty % receive the Jar
. / from the court. You have heard wha
is claimed by counsel. but YOU can onl
1 lawfully give those claims effect 80 "a
a, they may be confirmed lv the court
Otherwise your conclusions VII rc.
upon an improper foundation.
The statute providing for tbe priso
! 90 Ioua authorized the wardcuin man
tainug disc pilue % inB.ct pun.-hmcn