The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-08-01

OAyz3nl1gAAG
-zz42 9 z2z{ 8 ,6zzzzzzzzs~
| iessuess or breaches OF the peace or riot
or resistance of the law, II me jury be-
! uepe mat suGn did in fact occur therein,
| and that the defendant would have SO
recognized the situation in the aDsense
| OF negligence, as above defined, ana IL
ne had used this diligence apove-deiined,
| then II was mis- duty to call upon the Gov
ernor for troops, and ii the jury believe
| from the evidence that Simon Solomon,
| sheriff of the county of HeDrico, negligent
~ as above defined, failed to learn Of am
| breach OF the peace, threats, intimidation,
assaults. throwing Of stones or other mis-
| sizes, shooting with deadly weapons at
| said cars or tho persons In charge there
or, or the passengers thereon, In the
county Of EIenrico, that did In fact occur
In such county, or negligcntly and per-
versely disregard the same, or failed win
the facts before him, or which, by the
exercise of the diligence required by law,
as above defined, to be exercised by such
officer he might have had before him. 10
| act In the premises as man OF Ordinary
| prudence, honesty, courage ana actiVlty
| " ould have acted and failed to use those
! means which an honest man would nave
| used and did not do all In his power, both
by said means or by his personal e%er-
! ton to prevent violations Of or resistance
| to law that may have occurred IN the
| county Of Henrico. they should fnd the
said Solomon guilty of gross neglect OF
| duty.
| The officer who is clothed with the au-
thority to call upon the Governor OF the
State for the armed forces of the Com
| mcnwelth in aid Of his civil authority IN
law or imminent danger threof II bound
to use the diligence above dehned-to
| know the exact occasion when the troops
should be called for, and If he fails on
such occasion through negligence az
! above defined to call for troops, ana
injury to persons or property or to the
public peace In said county ensues, then
| he is guilty of gross neglect OF duty, as
set forth in the statute, and the jury must
| SO find.
Has Not immunity.
Merely because ministerial officer has
| discretion to exercise as to the 1nethods
and instrumentalities to be employed IN
the discharge of a duty Imposed upon
him by law, he is not In consequence
thereon possessed of the immunity OF
| judicial officer Although the calling out
OF the militia under section S8 or the
Code depends upon the discretion Of the
sheriff. yet when he negllsent!y- as aoovc !,
| defined refuses or fails to call them OUT
on a proper occasion, he takes upon MN
self the responsibility Of any injury which
NAV result therefrom to the pupHc peace :;
and good order, and the occurring OF sa!u
violation of the public peace VIII justly
rs, ~ The fact that he fully believes that
] the best thing was not to call out the
militia. will not excuse him unless suci,
belief would nave been entertained,
under the circumstances by man %
ordinary prudence and honesty
Mr.. Bryan Opens Argument.
After the instructions We're read IN
arguments Of the case began. AS ai...
cfnnted Yesterday Mr. George Bryan, rep
raennting the Commonwealth opened.
From tho manner in which Mr. Bryan
entered into the case 1t became evlden
at once that the argument would not D.
the brief and perfunctory affair expect
ed by the defense, but q powerful inlu
ence in the trial, perhaps making som
things appear differently from what the.
md done an to this time. Clear, positive
direct, the argument of Mr.. Bryan iron
it's first word indicated positive con
! viction by the Commonwealth that tn
, sheriff was guilty Of the charGe-gros
neglect-and that lawful punishment
shohld be visited upon his head,
5 With few words Introductory apou
{ his position in the case stating that y
+ had absolutely no connection with IN
! prosecutor-the Passenger and Powe
Q Company-but that he was merely, with
3 out fee or reward. serving the Common
, wealth. In the inability Of the prope
; Commonwealth officer to serve. Mr.. Bry
an proceeded, as he said, to 60 at ono
In midas res. He drew the lines closel
:, and positively and limited his words
tho single ssue--the failure Of the sher
!, to know of the disorders proven by tn
prosecution to have existed. Revertin
constantly to the evidence In the cas-
he showed how day by day there ha
. heen di>orders in the county-force use
= IN efforts to get men to leave the en-
q ploy of the company: stones thrown {
4 cars; citizens struck and their lives el
dangered with missiles, sample
which had been produced IN court; olo'
shed; mobs assembled. He showed no
!, witnesses had appeared, stating pos'tiv
u " that they had seen and encounters
- these sundry disorders-Mr, Moore, WI
- was on a car when motorman )"
~ dragger off; Mr.. Bodeker. who W
+ abused and threatened by mob of thr'
" persons Mr. Craigie, who was strue
SO and painfully hurt; Mr.. Neff, whose CT
id was fired upon: Mr.. Pendleton, who WI
Richmond, stoning II, and painfully !
We jurying person therein; and others WI
IS. testified to things Just as bad.
We Positive I'd Neg tive.
rs In the face OF this overwhelming test
e. mony the best the sheriff could do W.
~ to introduce men 10 say that they ha
not seen the Observation-Disclosures whic
- amounted to practically nothing. M
Bryan drew the line sharp and fast b
= tween negative testimony and positi
testimony. II two men could say tn
81 they actually saw things. It would offs
- the statement of twenty men willing
A.. SAY that they had not seen the sar
things. So 1t was with the sher!n, ]
Z. had gone around and talked with peoI
. Who didn't see things. and upon thu
IS advice he had acted, apparently n
getting that 1t was his duty as sheriff
= decide for himself He must have be
W distracted or dopey said MIR. Bryan VIII
he consulted the cigar man. the so
!, water's seller the milkman, and determin