The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-05-17
THE SHERIFF IS LIABLE
JUDGE BAKERS IMPORTANT RULING
AFFECTING LYNcHING CASES.
The Tyler Suit for Damages VIII Now
BE Tried on Its
Merits.

he holds that a sheriff is responsible for the
life and safety of a prisoner and is answer
able to a civil suit for damages He further
held that the sureties on a bond OF a sheriff
are also responsible.
The case in which this opinion was given
was that Of John w. Tyler, as administrator
Of the estate of Marion Tyler. who was
lynched in Scott county The administrator
has sued Sheriff Goblin for damages, and
has also made the ~sureties on that officials
bond defendants. There are five of them
Sheriff Goblin filed one demurrer to the COM
plant, and the s~uretfes filed a separate de-
murrer. In both want of facts was set
forth, and the sureties also claimed they
were not responsible for this act. Every
point raised was ruled not well taken by
Judge Baker. and both demurrers were over
ruled, and the defense will now have ten
days in which to answer. The effect Of the
decision will probably be TO bring the cause
to trial at an early day. Judge Baker said:
THE ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED.
The wrongful acts charged are that the
sheriff carelessly and negligently suffered
and permitted a mob of persons to collect
for the purpose of committing acts of vio-
lence against the person Of the deceased.
and that he carelessly and wrongfully per-
AAAAtACs VIZ JtAA al In NAS 0C1Na2C0 vas
confined to be and remain without a sufi-
cient guard to protect the same against the
acts of violence of a mob. and that in further
disregard of his duty he aided and abetted
the mob In accomplishing it's unlawful con-
spiracy by delivering to the mob the keys Of
the dollhouse of the Jail in which the pris-
oner was confined, by presenting to the mob
a lighted lamp, by means Of which it was
better enabled TO accomplish Its unlawful
purpose, by informing the mob as to the
location of the cell occupied by the de-
ceased. by failing to make an outcry or to
give an alarm whereby assistance could
have been obtained, and by failing and re-
fusing to make any resistance or to interpose
any obstruction TO the mob. 1t Is also al
legged that the mob thereupon removed the
deceased from the jail to a place near by
and hanged him with a rope by the neck
until he was thereby strangled to death.
1t Is also alleged that after the mob had
removed the deceased from the jail, and
after 1t had suspended him with a rope by
the neck from a tree, the sheriff was guilty
of further neglect in that he failed and re-
fused to cut down the body of the deceased
before life was extinct, and failed and re-
fused to resuscitate the deceased from the
straDgulation which was then and there de-
stroying his life. 1t Is commended that the
acts and omissions of the sheriff were not
done or permitted by him in virtue of or
under color Of his Office. because the acts
and omissions charged against him amount
to a charge OF aiding and abetting in the
commission OF a murder: and that IL the acts
Of the sheriff were not done by virtue OF
and under cplor Of his Office as sheriff, then
neither he nor his sureties are liable on his
official bond.
DUTY OWED THE PRISONER.
ut Is firmly settled hat an officer may
be held personally responsible for any and
all wrongs committed by him: but when
an action is brought upon the bond he gave
for the performance of his official duty, he
and his sureties can only be held respon-
sible for a breach of duty covered by the
bond. Could the deceased. If alive, have
maintained an action on the case against
the sheriff for the acts Of omission and
commission charged against him in the
complaint? This depends on the question
whether the sheriff owes any duty Of care
for the safety of prisoners lawfully COM
mitted to his custody to await trial. If
the law imposes on the sheriff the duty or
exercising due care for the safety Of pris-
oners whom he is holding I'm custody by vir-
tue OF q Il W1ul WITH, tnen ne certainly would
be responsible on his bond for a breach or
that duty. He held the deceased in Gus
tody under a warrant OF commitment by
virtue Of his Office. He was responsible by
virtue OF his Office for the safe keeping OF
any person so committed, so that he might
produce him In court AZ the time OF the
trial. But that is a duty which, he owes
TO the State alone. and for the breach or
this duty no action would lie on behalf of
any citizen. But, in my opinion, a. tie
lawful custodian Of the deceased, he owed
To him the df1fV of exercising ordinary and
reasonable are for his life and health.
This duty was due to the deceased person
ally, and Is additional to the duty of safe
keeping which he owes to the public This
duty OF care arose from having the person
Of the deceased committed to his care by
virtue Of his office. The sheriff Is bound to
exercise due care and diligence in keeping
possession Of property levied on by virtue
of his Office, so as to leave the lien unim-
In the possession of the debtor. He is
bound to take ordinary care OF property
levied on to prevent deterioration or de-
structfon, and IL he neglects TO do so, is
liable for the resulting injury. He must ex-
ercise ordinary care In moving goods and in
selecting a fit place for their deposit. He
must use due care to feed and water live
stock seized by him in virtue Of a lawful
writ. For a failure TO use ordinary care
in such cases, and Others which might be
mentioned, he and his sureties are RESPONSE
BILE on his official bond. This liability grows
out of breach of duty to exercise care I'M
posed on him by law IN respect OF property
OI III A4Ao 'AA1
HUMAN BEINGS AS WE'LL AS GOODS.
eff the law imposes a duty of care in
respect OF animals and goods which he has
taken into his care by virtue of his office.
why should not the law impose the duty
of care upon him in respect Of human be-
ings who are in his custody by virtue OF
his office? Is a helpless prisoner in the GUS
tody OF the sheriff less entitled TO his care
than a bale of goods or a dumb beast?
Tho law is not subject to n such re-
proach. When a sheriff by virtue OF his
office has arrested and imprisoned a human
being he Is bound TO exercise ordinary and
| reasonable care under the circumstances OF
| each particular case for the preservation OF
his life and health. This duty or care Is
one owing by him TO the person In his Gus
tody by virtue Of his office. and for a breach
OF such duty he and his suretles are re-
sponsible for damages on his official bond.
The condition OF the bond is that the sheriff
shall we'll and faithfully perform the duties
| OF his Office In accordance with the law
| and one OF those duties Is to exercise care
for the life and health OF persons lawfully
committed to his custody. The sheriff, by
virtue of his office, did owe the deceased,
under the circumstances, a special and offi'
cial duty OF care, for the breach or which
he Is responsible. The contention that the
complaint is bad because IL shows the
sheriff is guilty OF a felony is ~untenable
Owing TO the deceased the duty TO exercise
due care for the preservation OF his life
IL is immaterial whether he committed q
breach of that duty by acts of misfeasanc(
or nonfeasance. The intent with which Id
committed the breach of duty Is not ma
terial. The fact. If il is a fact, that hc
is criminally liable for the murder or the
4 daraa sod urnrl6 nnt ralt.xn him from RtVi