Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-18


was not used. The ladies appealed to him, but
he told them that he could do nothing. as the
matter was in Flinders hands He heard the
ladies say that some would suffer for the
matter. He told them that the affair would not
be made public. He told them that if they
came into the store again they would be
arrested He had done nothing to make the
affair public nor had the firm. Mr.. Flinders
had been sent to Richmond by witness on bust
ness. His visit had no connection with the
suit.
FLINDERS AND HIS DUTIES
To Mr.. Hamilton Mr.. Hendricks stated that
Flinders was employed by him on behalf Of the
firm. He performed his duties as he thought
proper. He suspected the ladies Of theft be-
cause one stood beside the counter, with her
elbow resting on it near the rings, the other
standing beside her, and the making by them
OF watchful glances. he saw Flinders take hold
Of one of the ladies' elbows and take them into
the room. Witness did not then know. nor did
he suspect, why they were taken there When
he went to the room the ladies appealed to him
to protect them from Flinders. he told them
that he could do nothing; that Mr. Flinders
had charge of the case.
Mr.. Hamilton-You refused to interfere?
The witness-I did.
And You were then acting for the firm?
! was.
KNEW OF THE EXAMINATION,
Continuing, Mr.. Hendricks said he knew that
the packages of the ladies had been examined.
and knew that the ladies were to be searched
by the matron. He saw the ladies aftervsrd
ana knew that the ring had not been found a nd
yet told them II they came back to the store he
would have them arrested. The witness was
not allowed to state whether or not he took
part in the examination Of the effects of the
Indies or encouraged the search.
Detective Flinders. being recalled nv
Hamilton for further cross-examination, stated
that he did not say in the Police Court that he
saw Mrs. Ragland take the ring from the case
lie denied having Swallowed Mr.. Siddons, Q
member of the bar. in the Boston House
Mrs. Hobson, the clerk in charge of the silver
counter at the time Of the occurrence, identified
pasteboard box containing two napkin rings
handed TO her by the plaintiffs counsel and
said that she was mistaken when she stated that
she handed the wrapper two boxes.
ToDAY's EvIpExcE
The court room was even more crowded upon
the opening Of tie court this morning than on
yesterday, very large number of the spects-
tors being Of the gentle SEX
Mr.. Gott. the stenographer who took the tes-
timony at the trial in the Police Court was the
first witness called this morning He stated
that he could not find his original notes, and
could not well independently remember the
testimony.
Mr.. Fredk L. siddons, . member Of the Dis
trict bar, was then called to the stand for the
purpose Of showing that he had been followed
about the Boston House by Flinders, but on
Mr.. Davis objection that it was collateral mat
ter the offer was overruied. Both sides then
announced the Gloss Of their testimony.
PRAYERS OF THE ArroRxHYs.
Mr.. Hamilton. for the plaintiff, submitted
three prayers, to the effect that il
the jury believed that Flinders was
an empIoye of the firm and acted in their be-
half. they should find for the plaintiff;
second. That the jury should take into con-
siderstion the suffering caused the plaintiff,
and, third, that il the jury found that the plain
tiff Was the subject of Flinders excess Of au-
thority, then the jury should assess such addi-
tionsl damages as would tend 70 act as .
warning.
Mr.. Davis objected to each Of the three pray
ers and asked the court to instruct the jury
that under the declaration none Of
the defendants were liable. He also asked
the court to instruct the jury that they could
not find for the plaintiff unless the alleged
wrongs or injuries were authorized by
the firm, that they should find for
the plaintiff did take the ring and that in esti-
mating the damage the jury should not give
damages other than for the injuries alleged
to have been directly caused the plaintiff
at the ticle. Mr.. Davis also moved the court to
strike from the record all the testimony as to
the subsequent suffering of the plaintiff.
In support of the prayers asked for by the
plaintiff. Mr.. Hamilton briefly referred to the
testimony. and claimed that il coald not be
doubted that Flinders acted under and bv the
authority OF the defendants. Woodward Il
Lothrop. and their manager Mr.. Hendricks.
The right to arrest was not in the power of
Flinders of the defendants, and even though
the plaintiff submitted to the arrest, the wrong
was done, amounting to wrongful imprison-
menI
Mr.. Davis said his first five prayers were
based on the ground that the declaration al
have been the composite act of
Hendricks and Flinders. 1t was on
tina: ground that he had asked the
court to instruct the jury to find for TIE de-
PENDANTS He claimed that Woodward 4
Lothrop were not responsible for any excess
Of Flinders not authorized by them.
THAT is. remarked the court, you con-
tend that they were only responsible 30 long -
he acted lawfully"
..Not at all. your honor" replied Mr.. Davis.
''There is q marked difference between the two
propositions"
JUDGE BRADLEr's REMARKa
Judge Bradley said that nothing could be
palmer or broader than the proposition ap-
proved by the United States Supreme
Court that where servant. acting
in the course Of business for
the master. did wrongful act. the master is
responsible. So. where q railroad employe used
undue violence in ejecting bow stealing . ride.
the company was held responsible And the en-
ployer had even been held responsible where
the employe, in doing q wrong against third
person, had expressly violated the di-
rect instructions OF the employer.
In the present case Woodward
Lothrop were fully represented BY efficient
help The firm found it necessary or proper
to employ Flinders as . detective to
protect the firm and its patrons.
He was left to go as far as
he saw fit. The act complained Of was one
which Flinders conceived it to be his
duty to prevent. Mr.. Hendricks, the
firms representative, left the man
to do as he saw fit The court would therefore
leave 1t to be decided by the jury whether
or not Flinders acted improperly and
under the firms authority. The three prayers
of the plaintiff would be granted ard
the first five OF the defendants re-
fused and also those in conflict with
the plaintiffs prayers. Judge Bradley also
stated that the thirteenth PRAYER OF the de-
PENDANTS. that il the plaintiff took the ring
the defendants we're not liable, would
be granted because the plaintiff had not OBJ
jected, although even in such a case q search
would not be lawful.
hr. DAVIS noted an exception to the courts
rulings, and at 1880 a recess was taken until /
clock.
After recess Judge Bradley stated that he