The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1897-11-19
MARLBOROUGH
Suit for Damages.

In the Circuit Court for Charles county,
before Judges Merrick and Crane, argu
ments were heard Tuesday in the demurrer
to the declaration in the suit of the infant
children of Joseph Cooking, who, through
their guardian, Thomas Cooking, have
sued the bondsmen of Sheriff Wade for
alleged negligence on the part of the sher-
iff in not preventing the lynching of Joseph
Cooking in the summer of 1896.
Arguments in favor of the demurrer
were made by States Attorney Posey and
Gen L. A. Wilmer, and against it by Her
bert B. Simpson, one of the counsel for
the plaintiff. Mr.. Posey, one Of the coun-
sci for the defendants, made an elaborate
argument to prove that the shcriff's bonds
men were in no wise responsible for the
action of the mob-no more so than if the
accused prisoner had been killed by Il
stroke of lightning, by the falling of a
brick or wall while in Jail. He quoted
numerous authorities to prove the position
held, and contcnded that the sherilfs
bondsmen were liable only in case the
prisoner was not safely kept
Mr.. Simpson in reply contended that
the declaration as we'll as the facts, proved
that the sheriff was derelict in his duty,
and had failed, first. to remove the priso-
ner to Balti.lore city Jail; secondly, to the
new Jail that had just been completed in
La Plata, although he had been requested
nv NJ nf co1f nr no
defense, and by the prisoner (Cocking)
himself; and, further, that he had removed
the guard at the Jail and left the prisoner
entirely unprotected. He commended that
the prisoner, as set forth in the declara
ton, was entirely innocent of the crime
charged against him, as would be shown
when the case came up for trial; that the
lynching party consisted of twenty five
were known and would be brought out on
trial, and that it would have been an easy
matter for the sheriff to have protected his
prisoner had he been SO disposed. He
concluded by saying that the suit was an
effort upon the part of the children of the
deceased to remove the stain upon their
name, which would be done if the case was
permitted to go to trial and the demurrer
overruled.
General Wilmer closed for the defense,
and started out with the declaration that it
was the first case on record where sher-
ifs bondsmen had been sued for damage
for violence done prisoner confined to
his custody, and was, therefore, a most i'm
portant one. The general said that it was
bold assertion to make that the accused,
who had been indicted by one of the most
intelligent of juries, was innocent of the
horrible crimes charged against him, for
it was well known that many of the most
prominent people were freely convinced
of his guilt from the evidence adduced.
He also quoted many authorities to show
that the bond of a sheriff was not liable
because of failure or inability of the sheriff
to protect prisoner from the vengeance
of a mob, and cited the breaking into the
Bastile by mob in the French Revolution
and the acts of the mob who, in the pres
ence of one of the judges of the Court of
Appeals, and who attempted to prevent
it, took prisoner from the custody of the
law officers and lynched him.
The case was held under consideration
by the court.