The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-09

and that they took measures to prevent it.
1t Is proper to consider this on the question
Of whether she was detained against her
will at any time. But unless the defend
ants were then OBTAINING her against her
will, the fact that they took steps to pre-
vent her escape in that manner did not neces-
sarily constitute unlawful restraint. They
had right to have her go out in an
ordinary and reasonable way. 1t is claimed
for the plaintiff that the girls and the man
Bohen were sent by the defendants to re-
capture her and that thew forced her to
return. 1t is claimed by the defendants that
she was not forcibly brought back an that
whatever was done by the girls and by Bohen
was without their direction Or consent. If,
as plaintiff claims, these persons were sent
after her and compelled her to return, then
it was unlawful and it would give her the
to that extent. If 1t was as the defendants
claim, either that they did not forcibly COM
pei her to return, but only persuaded her,
or II they were not sent and their action was
not ratified, then it would not give her a
right to recover at all upon that particular
ground.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that after
this time she was detained for the remain
OF the institution against her will; that by
this occurrence and subsequent events. the
defendants ti were notified of the fact that she
was being detained against her will.
1t Is claimed upon the part OF the de-
PENDANTS that upon her return she expressed
regret for having gone and a desire to re-
HSlu ana LlaL tney ndQ no reason 10 sup
pose that the facts were otherwise. 1t is for
you to say what the fact is in this re-
gard, under the principles already given to
you. II she was detained against her will
at this time, If she was brought back and
detained against her will, that. as I have
said, would constitute false imprisonment to
that extent. and that would continue until
the defendants were advised that she de-
sired to remain.
Certain declarations of the plaintiff have
been testified to expressing desire or in
OH IN ftn iVcf fFYffi 10
claimed for the plaintiff that these were
made under fear induced by the defendant
conduct and by threats, and that they were
not true 1t is denied upon the part of the
defendants that these expressions were in
duced by fear or threats or coercion. and
that they had no reason to believe that her
feelings were otherwise than as she eX-
pressed them. If the plaintiff at the time
the declarations were made was under the
coercion Of the defendants so that she was
afraid to express her real wishes or de-
sires in these respects, then such declara-
lions, II not true, would be without force
and defendants would have no right to rely
upon them.
Now, I have said that the plaintiffs moral
character did not give defendants any right
to detain her against her will. The 1act
that the House OF the Good Shepherd was
a reformatory institution did not give them
any greater rights than any other individual
or private institution, nor would the fact
Gf it is facD that the defendants acted
from good motives exempt them from ltabil-
ty; but in determining whether the plain
tiff remained in the institution voluntarily,
and in determining what the defendants had
a right to believe as 10 her attitude towards
the institution. as to her wishes and de-
sires in regard to going or remaining, you
have a RICH to consider her previous life.
you have right to consider the circum cum
stances under which she entered the insti-
tuition, and you have right TO consider the
nature and purposes of the institution ana
the way it was conducted. You can con
slider these things as bearing on the probable
tiles of the case. In fact, the question at
issue is to be determined IN the light OF
the surrounding circumstances, ana upon all
the evidence in the case bearing on the queS-
ton.
There has been a good deal of testimony
Of other persons who have been inmates
of the institution, portion OF which did
not go directly to the conduct of the defen-
dants toward the plaintiff or 10 her attitude
So far as it is materiol, that bears only
on the probabilities of tie case: But you
are not trying the question whether others
were imprisoned against their will, the con-
duet of the defendants toward other inmates
is only material so far as it affected the
case for you is whether the plaintiff has a
cause CT action, and not whether somebody
else has
that there was insufficient food or clothing,
would not give the plaintiff a cause or &C
ton il she was not falsely imprisoned. Nor
the beating of other inmates, II they were
beaten She tesdfes that she never was
Now under these principles and rules it
is for you to say what the fact IS IN TINS
case. Was the plant fl at any time detained
in the House Of the Good Shepherd against
her will? If she was net, then your veroic5
would be for the defendant and that would
be the end of the case. II she was, then 1t
would be for you to determine the question
Of damages. And if the piaintf is emitted
to recover, she would be entitled in the trst
fered by reason OF the imprisonment. That
would not be matter for mathematical
calculation, but would be determined by the
circumstances of the case; that is, you would
determine it in the exercise of a wise descre-
ton how much would compensate her for
the injury done to her by the Imprisonment
the injury to her feelings and TO her person,
taking into consideration al the circum-
stances of the ease, by reason Of the deten-
ton And in that regard, it would not
be necessary that you should md the talSe
imprisor ment Of the plaintH for the entlre
time charged in the complaint, any substan-
tial detention, for any substantial length or
time, would give her right to recover. II
she was detained for the entire time the
damages would naturally be larger than II
she was detained for a shorter time. SO
that it would be for you 20 consider whether
she was detained the entire time or only a
portion of the time II you found for her
at all In addition to the actual damages
which she has sustained. it would be proper
for the jury in the exercise OF wise discre-
ton, to award further damages by way OF
punishment called exemplary damages, by
way of punishment to defendants for the
wrong committed and as a warning to others
against a siimlar offense. And considering
that question, it would be proper TO con-
slider the motives under which defendants
acted and it would be proper to consider all
the circumstances attending her imprlson-
ment-any indignit.es put upon her II any
such there were-the fact Of her being COM
PEELED ito work, il she was, and all those
matters, in determining the question OF punt
tive damages.
the Plaintiff; that is, she must establish her
right to recover by a fair prepondeTance OF
the evidence to your satisfaction. Otherwise
the verdict would be for the defendant.
It is proper, l think, for me to say to you
in this connection. before giving the case into
YOUR hands that no question OF passion or
prejudice or sympathy or feeling OF any sort
should enter into your decision of this case.
You are to determine the issue in this case
upon the evidence in the case, the same as
you would any other question submitted to
As have said there are two individuals
named as defendants in addition to the House
of the Good Shepherd itself. The House OF
the Coed Shepherd would be responsible for
the acts OF the persons in charge of the in
mates. There is nothing in the case to con-
meet the defendant Emma Richardson, with
the acts complained of in this case, and your
verdict will be for her in any event. II you
find for the other defendants, your verdict
would simply be that you find for the de-
PENDANTS. If you find for the piaintin, your
verdict would be that you find a verdict IN
favor of the defendant, Emma Richardson
and for the plaintiff against the other de-
PENDANTS, naming them, and stating the
amount of your verdict.
At the opening of court in the fore
noon, Judge Brill announced that he
would deny the motions of the plain
tiff and of the defendant to direct the
irry to return a verdict for one or the
other. 1t was the opinion of the court
that no case had been made out
against Emma Richardson, one of the
defendants.
con CLAIM of counsel for the de-