Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-20
JUDGE BRADLEY's CHARGE.
How He Instructed the Jury in the Boston
House Case.

How He Instructed the jury in the Boston
House Case.
As announced in yesterdays STAR, the jury
in the case Of Mrs. Fannie c. Ragland against
Messrs. Woodward Il Lothrop, the pro-
prietors Of the Boston Dry Goods House.
George F. Hendricks. their manager,
and Charles E. Flinders. their private de-
tective, claiming $4,000 damages for the
false arrest and wrongful detention OF the
plaintiff at the store of the defendants, Wood
ward q Lothrop. on January 80, 1891, which
had been on trial in Circuit Court No. l, Judge
Bradley, during the week. returned a verdict at
4 O'Clock awarding the plaintiff sl5, 900 dam
ages against all Of the defendants. The jury
were absent absent about half an hour, and their
verdict was not unexpected.
JUDGE BRApLEY's CHARGE.
In charging the jury Judge Bradley said the
case was one of great Importance to both the
plaintiff and the defendants. The suit was
brought mainly for the vindication Of the
plaintiff. 1t was based or grew out Of Q very
little thing, q napkin ring OF the value OF IS
cents. The arrest was unlawful, for Flinders
had no authority to make an arrest, and
much less for making the alleged search. II
the jury believed, however, that Mrs. Ragland
stole the ring their verdict should be for
the defendants. A merchant undoubtedly
had the right to protect his property. but
he must be careful to use only lawful
means in doing On the other hand it was
the right and privilege Of a customer to visit
the store unmolested. II the jury believed
that the plaintiff was innocent, then they
should award such damages rs would vim
dictate her innocence and prevent in the
future the repetition of such q fragrant
outrage. The jury should in that connec-
ton determine whether or not it had been
shown that ring had been stolen. But even
If she did take the ring the larceny OF arti-
Gle of the value Of rs cents did not
constitute felony, and therefore the
arrest would not have been author
lied Outside of the testimony of Detective
Flinders the theft of the ring q matter of
inference only. Flinders testimony had been
characterized by both sides as they saw proper.
and the court would leave it in the hands of the
jury. with the remark that where witness is
found false as to one thing, it is likely
that he is false as to all others. II the
arrested and detained by Flinders, acting
directly or indirectly for the defendants, then
all the defendants were liable.
An employer. said Judge Bradley, was not re.
sponsible for the gross, willful, malicious and
wanton acts of his employee through the mere
employment of the person, but where the en-
ployer participated in the wrongful acts of the
employee, expressedly or implicitly, or subse-
quently ratified the acts, then the employer is
liable to punative damages, but the damages.
puniative and compensatory, should not exceed
in all the sum claimed, $40, 900.
Mr.. Davis noted an exception to the grant,
ing of the three prayers OF the plaintiff, and to
those parts of the courts charge relative to
punitive damages and all other parts antago-
nistic to the prayers submitted on behalf Of
the defendants.