The Newtown bee., 1900-01-05
ROTH VS.. GrLBERr.

ROTH VS.. GILBERr.
The case of Adolph Roth of Bxif lgn+
port against Charles Gilbert OF Stephe
has inst been decided by Attorney John
L. Pullman Of Bridgeport. justice OF tbs
peace, in favor Of the plaintiff upon one
of the issues involved and In favor of the
defendant upon all the other Issues, and
practically nominal damages OF 81 80
were awarded the plaintiff. The case has
aroused 8 great deal of interest and arose
out OF the affair which took place near
Mr. Gilbert's residence, Sunday morning,
October s, 1899. Roth with three other
young men from Bridgeport were found
} stealing nuts upon Mr. Gilbert's land land
when MIR Gilbert came upon them, Roth
abused him and pointed 22-calibre
rife at him and threatened to shoot him
IL he advanced another step. The young
men then drove away and MIR Gilbe TT, in
company with Homer Logan, Charles r.
Gilbert, John L. Patterson and william
Keller hitched up their horses and pur-
sued them. They were caught two or
three miles from Mr. Gllbert's place, ar
rested and taken to Constable Her ~ s.
Osborne's In Easton. There they wished
to settle the civil injuries and be allowed
to 60 home, and Roth, for himself,
agreed to pay to Mr. Gilbert % for the
srespass and theft OF the nuts and 81 for
damages resulting from the ASSAULT COM
mitted by pointing the rifle and threat
ening to shoot Gilbert. Gilbert agreed
TO accept the $15 in settlement and as
Roth had no money, it was agreed that
Gilbert should keep the RIA as security
until the following Sunday, when Roth
was to come up and redeem it. At their
own solicitation the young men were
then allowed to 60. Roth brought suit
instead upon four counts, one count for
assault alleged to have been committed
upon him when arrested, claiming $75
damages; one count for conversion of
the rifle, claiming $25 damages; one
count for false Imprisonment, claiming
$50 90 damages, and one count for foYci-
bly, taking the rifis out OF Roth's posses
sion, claiming $500 damages or $I75
damages in all, and the case was made
returnable before John 8. Pullman OF
Bridgeport, Justice of the Peace, on No.
vember IS, 1899, and tried on Novemb Der
rs. Mr. Gilbert through his attorney set
up as his defense denial OF the assault:
that the rifis was held by agreement as
security fer the sum OF SIS 90 agreed
upon as settlement of the civil mi u,
that there was no false imprisonment as
Roth was lawfully arrested he having
committed felony thereby giving any
person the right to arrest him without
q warrant, and that be had been released
only upon his own request, and that the
rife was not forciblg taken from him.
Roth through his attorney plead that
| The agreement was made 1t was while
Roth was under duress and therefore
could be avoided. The reply OF the de-
PENDANT was that even though there were
d0ress 1t was an agreement and settle
ment that should have been made under
ordinary circumstances and being pr op-
er settlement it couId not be avoided.
The defendant q lso act up a counter claim
the assault committed upon him by Roth
snd asking for 5000 IL the settlement
made at the time was not properly made.
Justice Pullman found for the defendant
upon the counts for assault, false i'm
prisonment and for the forciDle taking OF
the rifle. Upon the count for conversion,
he found the value OF the rife TO be $7,
chat the sum OF $16 agreed upon In settle
ment was exorbitsnts that tine same was
made under duress; that Mr. Gilbert
should have taken from him so cents for
nuts, OIL for the tresspass and OIL for the
assault in aiming the rifle at him and
threatening to shoot him, or $3.50 in all
He therefore awarded Roth $4.50 dam
ages and cost upon that count. Attorney
<. r. Hall, OF Hall &. johnson, appeared
for Roth. and Attorney 4. O. Hull, of
Chamberlain b Hull, for Gilbert. Both
parties are dissatisfied with tine decision
and will undoubtedly appeal to the next
term OF the Court OF Common Pleas
The following ID the memorandum on
Justice Pullman's decision
''The plaintiff took some nuts, b Ing
ing to the defendant, feloniously and car
ried them away against the will or the de-
PENDANT, intending to deprive the owner
OF them permanently and 60 convert them
to his own use. This was larceny, and
although under our statutes the punish-
nent is graded according TO the value OF
the property stoleni yet all larceny In
felony. The defendant then had right |
Co pursue and arresb the plaintiff. After
arresting him, his duty was Immediately
10 take him before Justice OF the Peace
in that town and lodge information
against him. At the plaintiffs earnest |
solicitation and entreaEy, he did not take
him before q Justice Of the Peace, but
allowed him his liberty. The Implied
agreement being that the plaintiff wonld /
not hold the defendant guilty of false
imprisonment FOR doing the very thing
the plaintiff had earnestly sought, I44
Mass. 294; 100 Mass. 243 81 We 437.
Besides the crime for which the defend
ant arrested the plaintiff, the defendant
had civil action against the plaintiff for
the value of the civil injury done him.
This amounts co 80 cents the value or the
nuts, and whatever mis- injury may have
been from the alleged assault OF pointing
the gun, find the value ofathe rife now
In possession Of the defendant TO be or.
II the rifle waa retained by defendant 40
security Tor the exact value of the nuts
snd Of ne aazasga o. ths alleged assault,
H