Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-05-03
THE G0SH0RN CASE.
OPINION OF LOWER COURT RE-
yERsED BY APPELLATE COURT.
AN INTERESTING POLITICAL FEUD.
Thirty-Four Assignments of Error
Plea of Conspiracy and False Ar
rest-Many Opinions Handed Down.
Argument Heard.

The United States Circuit Court OF APP
peals convened here yesterday at noon
for the May term. Judges Golf, Purnell,
| and Waddill presided.
The court handed down an opinion re-
versing the decision of the lower court,
and awarding a new trial in the case Of
Il. W. Stanton, Peter Silman, John A.
Jarret and Robert \. Coleman, plain
tits in error. against J. w. Goshorn, de-
PENDANT in error The case came up in
! this court on a writ of error to the judg-
ment Of the United States Circuit Court
for the District Of West Virginia, render
ed August II, 1898.
The case. which has been fully report
ed In the Dispatch, was argued here some
time ago. 1t grew out Of criminal pro-
secution in the Criminal Court Of Ka-
nawha county, w. Va, against the de-
PENDANT in error.
ORIGIN OF THE CASE.
The defendant In error and the plain
tins I'm error were unfriendly to each
other, growing out OF a political feud in
November, 1880. 1t is alleged that Robert
\. Coleman informed Stanton and Jar
ret and Slman that the defendant In
error, Goshorn. had had several CONVEX
sations with him in reference TO getting
from the Clerks Office certain road or
ders, allowed by the County Court OF
said county TO Silman I'm the settlements
OF his accounts as Sheriff, in which he
said that If he could get hold of these
papers he would then have the newspa-
pers make an investigation and publish
the fact that there were no vouchers Tor
The allowance in question, which would
create Il great stir. and get the County
Court. Silman, and Stanton into trou-
be And that he had proposed to him
| Coleman to take the road orders out or
| the Clerks office, and that he Goshorm
would destroy them. Upon receiving this
| information il is alleged that the pam
tifs i'm error determined 20 lay trap TO
catch Goshorn. That the road orders
were placed where he could get them
and an arrangement made WHEREBY ne
could get them at Il certain time. Ina1
Goshorn fell into the trap ana WIS 81
rested and indicted.
THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.
There were thirty-four assignments Oh
error. Among the instructions gwen ~
| tho lower court were the following peiiS
| No offered by the defendant III erroi'
and the Courts No. y a.. -.
"No The Court instructs the jury
,bat II they believe from the evidence
tbot then urpose and object OF the pam
tiff I'm getting possession OF tle sdiu
road orders, in controversy III this SUIT
80 "a examine them I'm order that he
might ascertain their validity OF lhtes-
ritv and not 20 destroy them, and that
the defendant, Coleman, was made ac-
ouainted with such intention and pur-
nose on the part of the plaintiff before he
came I'm possession of said orders, then
the arrest and prosecution Of the PLAINTIFF
for the felonious taking of such orders
was without probable cause, and the jury
should so find"
NO. g. The Court instructs the jury
that If they find from the evidence that
the defendants. Silman. stanton, and
Jarret through defendant. y. \. Cole
man. placed the county orders mentioned
in this suit where the plaintiff could get
them and that it was arranged by Cole
man. on behalf of the defendants with
the plaintiff in this action, that they
would be placed IN certain box in the
Clerks Office and that they were SO
placed. and that the plaintiff was in
formed by Coleman where the papers
were. and that he could get them, and
mar the defendants. stanton, Silman.
and Jarret. agreed with coleman that
they should BE- so placed then, under such
| circumstances. the taking Of such orders
was not larceny; and II the jury further
| believe from the evidence that the plain
tiff was arrested and prosecuted FOR such
taking. then no probable cause existed for
such, PROSECUTION
OPINION OF THE COURT.
Judge Waddill. who wrote the opinion
| I'm the case, states:
| These two instructions seem 10 us err
roneous, and clearly calculated 20 mis-
| lead the jury, 10 the prejudice OF the
plaintiffs In error-Staunton, Silman, ana
| Jarret-in any view that may be taken
OF the case In Instructions No. the
| Jury were told that II the purpose OF
| Goshorn in taking the road orders In
| question was 10 examine them TO ascer-
/ tain their validity and not TO destroy
| them. and that plaintiff In error Cole
man. was acquainted with such intention
ON his mart before Goshorn came In pos
session OF said papers. then. that the ar
rest and prosecution OF defendant In err
ror was without probable cause, and they
| should so find.
| The instruction Is fatally defective in
| that IL makes no distinction between
| nlaintiffs in error-Coleman. Stanton. Sill
| man and Jarret--and charges Coleman
co-plaintiffs in error with knowledge OF
facts communicated TO him alone.
The courts instruction. No. .. is SUD-
| iect TO the same objection I'm part as NO.
4 T. IL leaves out OF view entirely the qurs-
| ton OF whether or not plaintiffs IN en-
ror-Staunton, Siiman. and Jarret-acted
in good faith in what they did, and inc