Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1899-05-31
Sheriff Must Paw for : Lypchinr. g.

onofln must ray Tor Iypching.
Marion Tyler was lynched at SCOTS
burg, Scott county, Indiana, several
months ago and the administrator of
his estate brought suit for damages
against the sheriff of the county for
failureto give his prisoner protection
from The mob. The suit is before
Judge John II. Baker in the United
States district court at indianapolis and
came up for the hearing of demurrer.
The complaint included the sheritf's
five bondsmen in the suit. The attor-
ney for the defendants demurred on the
ground that there was no cause of
action against the sheriff, as he was not
responsible for the safety of the prison
er against the attack of an overwhelm.
ing mob.
Judge Baker overruled the demurrer
of the defendants and the case was
ordered to go to trial. He held in the
strongest terms that sheriff was respon-
sible for the safety of persons in his
custody and was liable for damages if
they received injury. He declared that
IT the law imposes on the sheriff duty
OF care in respect to animals and goods
of which he is in possession by virtue
of his office and holds him responsible
if the property is destroyed and imposes
a duty of care upon him in respect to
human beings who are in his official
custody. SIS helpless prisoner in the
custody of the sheriff. he asks, "less en-
titled to his care than a bale of goods or
dumb BEAST" He vindicates the law
from such reproach.
Judge Baker holds that sheriff owes
to the state duty in the care of prison
ers. For the breach of this duty some
kind of an action would lie against him
on behalf of the public. But he is also
liable to the prisoner. If the prisoner
is killed while in his hands the liability
extends tothe prisoners legal repre-
sentatives. The Judge says: :" AS the
lawful custodian of the deceased he
Dyed to him the duty of exercising or
dinary and reasonable care for his life
and health. This duty was due to the
deceased personally and is additional to
the public. This duty of care arose
from having the person of the deceased
committed to his care by virtue of his
otlice.'
There was an attempt on the part of
the sheriff to show that he was not
liable for damages, as permitting a
prisoner to escape --of which he was
virtually guilty when he surrendered
the prisoner to the mob-is q felony for
which he was punishable as an indivi-
dual and that he could not be held in
damages. This plea VISA swept aside.
The Judge said that even if the sheriff
had been held criminslly liable for the
murder of the prisoner that fact "would
not relieve him from civil liability for
damages resulting from a breach of
official duty"
The Indianapolis News, in comment
ing on this case, justly says: "This decis-
ion ought to have stiffening effect on
cowardly and weakened sheriffs,
After a few of them have been mulcted
in heavy damages they will not be SO
quick to sympathize with the purposes
OF the mob. 1t will occur to them that
the shameful surrender of helpless and
unarmed men who are under the pro
lection of the law to bands of lawless
ruffins is an expensive business and
that in such cases it pays to do ones
duty"-Chicago Chronicle.