The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-01-20
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Jury in Spohn-Shinn Case
Awards $3.50 Damages.
OELIBERATEO TEN HOURS
Trial Attracted Much Attention
Because of Complications.

~ ~ ~ - - tfisFt ~ - - -
After a elaboration OF nearly ten hour.
the jury in the case Of Ernest sophr
against wilbur sbinn returned . verdict
IN favor Of the piaintiT and allowed dam
ages in the sum Of sea.
Of this amount see is allowed for actual
damages and $50 for exemplary damages
The amount sued for was $500. In ao-
eordanee with the instructions Of the
court the verdict returned By the jury
was sealed after the delberation Friday
night and was not returned until court
vas opened yesterday morning
The special findings in the case are as
follows:
Do you allow any sum for actual dam
ages? Answer-Ees.
II SO, what amount IS anowed?2 Answer
s4s0.
Do you allow exemplary damages and
Il SO how much? Answer-s90o
DID the defendant kick the boy An
swer-No.
II you allow any sum IL your verdict
for actual damages, state what such
aamage consists Of Answer-Bodily ana
mental injuries.
DID the defendant pursue the plaintiff
believing him to be the stoner boy when
he took the plaintiff from Hellers out
into the road Answer-No.
Did the defendant intend to take the
plaintiff TO Mr. stoners when he took
hold az him in Mr.. HelIer's house? An
swer-No.
II you answer the last question in the
negative, state what you think he intend
ed 10 do with the defendant Answer
We believe that the defendant intended
20 chastise the plaintiff
Did the defendant at the time Of the
trouble with the plaintiff on the 18th of
November 1890 act with malice, gross
negig enee. oppression or brutality
towards PLAINTIFF Answer-Yes.
II you answer the last question in the
II you answer the last question in the
acts Answer-By watching the plaintiff
and following him into the Heller house
and taking the plaintiff by force from
the house and into the road. where he
discovered which we believe. was a pre-
tense, that the plaintiff was not the
steiner boy, and violently shaking the .
plaintiff
A motion for new trial win Be made
within a few days and IL after the matter
IS argued new trial IS denied, the case
VIII be appealed to the supreme court.
The case has been closely followed
with considerable interest by attorneys.
The plaintiff in the action is boy Of
Il years Of age and is q resident Of Gyp-
sum township as is also the defendant
The latter IS a cattle raiser and has
q corral near the district school Of The
township. He alleged In his answer to
the petition Of the plaintiff. that the
children Of the school were in the habit
NJ frightening and stampeding the cattle
on the afternoon Of the trouble between
himself and the boy Sp0hn, November Il.
1922 the cattle were again seen to STAN
pede just as the children were leaving
he school building. Mary Stoner and
grandson Of A j. Heller had proceeded
some distance when turning about they
noticed Young Spohn running toward
them closely pursued by Shiun The
children sought refuge In the residence OF
Mr. Heller. Shinn it Is alleged. kicked
1pen the door and at once dragged young
5pohn into the street where he administ-
cred a severe shaking. In his frightened
the lad ran TO his own homo
rs soon as he managed 10 break away
from Shfnn and there informed HIS par
ants Of what had taken place The
mother OF the boy testified thar her son
was unable 10 sleep during the entire
night because Of his nervous condition.
The following day warrant, charging
shinn with assault ana battery was
sworn out by the boys narents and SHIN
was arrested. He plead guilty 10 the
charge az the hearing oe the city court
and was fined 81 and the costs OF the
prosecution.
Some time later the suit for damages
was brought the boy suing through his
father because ho was under age and
lot eligible 70 institute q suit according
20 the laws Of this state
AT-. Shinn is q very unassuming man
md had an array ~ witnesses to testify
@ his good character He Claims that T.
vas the case ~ a mistaken identity and
hat be taooeat It was another boy
amed st1ner 70 whom he was admins
ering the beating.
The attorneys for both sides made a
iar5 fight in the interest Of their re-
pective clients Judge wan and ~. S.
ihattuck represented the plaintiff In the
ction while Nressrs. Brlbache- and 2Iyat
epresented the defense.