Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1895-10-24

orized to try him and he was
bound by its judgment and he can
not recover in this action, unless
the jury find as advised in other
instructions that the defendant
Lee Mills as mayor and judge had
no jurisdiction of the subject-mat-
ter of the charge.
Sth. The court instructs the
jury that if they believe from the
evidence that the defendant, Lee
Mills and Robert L. Hicks, were
respectively mayor and police
judge and deputy marshal OF Pryor
Greek, an incorporated town, and
that the plaintiff, Dills, was arrest
ed under the warrant and brought
before said Mills for violating
city ordinance requiring carpenters
to pay tax or license, and that
said Dills was tried and found
guilty of violating said ordinance
and fined therefor and was i'm
prisoned under another ordinance
for refusing to pay the fine assess
ed against him, then said mayor
and judge and said deputy mar
shal Hicks were not guilty of false
Imprisonment, and the plaintiff
cannot recover against them, un-
less they find that there was no
law or ordinance in force in said
town at that time imposing such
tax and penalty and that said de
fendant knew or had the means of
knowing that no such law or ordi-
nance was then in force.
9th. The Court instructs the
jury that if they believe from the
evidence that the plaintiff laid a
plan to get himself arrested in or
der to render the person arresting
him liable in damages, and the
plaintiff was arrested in pursu-
ance and by reason of the plan (ifI
any of the plaintiff, then he can
not recover in this action.
10th. The Court instructs the
jury that the mere fact that de-
PENDANTS Hogan, Whitaker, Han
cock and Taylor were members of
the town council of Pryor Greek
at the time the ordinances of said
town were passed, and that they
voted for the passage thereof and
that they were such councilmen at
the time of the arrest
and Imprisonment of the plaintiff,
does not render them liable for
any acts of the mayor and police
magistrate of the town in the
wrongful enforcement of such or
dinances, and unless the jury be-
lieves from the evidence in this
case that such councilmen advised
or counseled, aided or abetted, in
the arrest and Imprisonment of
the plaintiff, other than as men,
bers of the council who passed
said ordinances, they will find
them not guilty of the false
Imprisonment charged in this case.
11th. The Court instructs the
jury that the plaintiff can recover,
if at all, only actual damages, such
as expenses reasonably incurred
in procuring his discharge from
imprisonment, attorneys fees in
that case, for loss of time, inter-
ruption of his business, and the
suffering bodily and mentally,
which the wrong done him has oc-
and for insult and humil-
iation, and such damages may be
enhanced by the condition of the |
Jail in which the plaintiff was con-
fined or any other discomfort or
deprivations which the jury may |
find from the evidence that the
plaintiff has sustained; but the |
jury must find the amount of such |
damages from the evidence In the
case and the burden of proof is
upon the plaintiff to establish such
damages. But should the jury
find from the evide.cce in this case
that the defendant, Lee Mills, the
mayor and judge who issued the
and who ordered the ar
rest and Imprisonment of the
plaintiff, was actuated by malice or
a bad motive and that the ar
rest and Imprisonment we're made
and procured in bad faith and with
some other motive in view than
he administration of justice, then
IN that case the jury may assess
punitive or vindictive damages
against sad Lee Mills and against
all other OF said defendants who
may be found guilty of advising.
counseling, aiding or abetting in
such arrest and Imprisonment.
18th. If the jury find from the
evidence that town marshal John
Ingram was not present at the time
Of the arrest and imprisonment of
The plaintiff and that he did not
advise, aid or abet in his
lr. est or Imprisonment, they will
4 n "A him NOT Uuiltv