Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1906-05-11
AWARDED $1,000 DAMAGES
WILSON WINS IN ISLANDER SUIT
AGAINST CLEMENT.
Jury In United States District Court AZ bur
nng,on Render Verdict saturday-Judse
wheeier's Charge to the Jurors-rhe HIS
tory Of the Case.

The Jury In the United States district
court at Burlington Saturday morning sw"lu
cd the plaintiff 81, 900 damages In the s. u,
(spotter) Wilson vs. L. W, Clement $4,000
SANDER suit.
The case had been ON trial since Tuesday
I'm his charge Friday, Judge Hoyt III. Wheeler
told the Jurors that the first thing for them
TO consider was whether Mr., Clement did say
the words alleged and whether he meant that
the shooting by the plaintiff was murder,
Did he say that he should have been indicted
for murder instead OF for manslaughter ana
did these words mean that he was muir
dererl IL he did mean by these words mat
Wilson was a murderer even though he ala
not mention wilson's name, the plaintiff was
entitled to a verdict
The Judge told the jurors that they should
take all the testimony together and determine
II he did say the words alleged and whether
he meant that the transaction was a murder
and that the man who did the shooting was
a murderer. II he did then the plaintiff
would be entitled 10 a verdict, II he did not
the verdict should be for the defendant.
The right Of free speech was not questioned
but neither Mr. Clement nor any other man
had the right TO bring in any man and sian.
der him In order to make a point II he did
that, although he did not know the plaintiff
nor mean him any HARM the verdict should
be for the plaintiff.
The Judge spoke about the fact that some.
thing had been said about malice and told
the Jurors that malice did not mean hatred.
lie said Mr.. Clement said he did not use the
word murderer in that sense. II he said any
thing so as TO leave the impression that II
was a murder and that the man was q muir
derer the verdict should be for the plaintiff.
A man has o right to his reputation and
character. II his standing in the community
was injured he was entitled to damages. The
jurors were told that while considering the
wealth, position, and number Of people who
heard the defendant they must consider what
the reputation Of the plaintiff was and also
the circumstances Of the shooting, not to see
II the plaintiff was guilty OF murder but to
see what il was that Clement had to talk
about. They must see how much injury 1t
would be 10 the plaintiff to have things said
about him and fix the damage. II was their
duty to do justice to both parties II it look
ed to them as though the plaintiff was reek.
less In making the charges, not pretending
to regard peoples rights, they could add
what they thought was right.
The case went to the jury at about ESQ
o'clock Friday afternoon.
The case grows out of statements said TO
have been made by Percival W. Clement dur
ing his campaign for the governorship four
years ago, when Mr.. Clement alluded to the
shooting of Z. T. Goshea at White River
junction by the plaintiff. Wilson had been
employed TO ferret out violations of the pro-
hibitory law and had been called spot
ter. - the charge being made that he induced
persons 10 commit various crimes and then
caused their arrest. He claimed that he did
the shooting in selfdefense. Wilson was
tried on a charge OF manslaughter and was
acquitted.
This case was first tried in Rutland coun'
~ court and verdict was rendered for the
new trial was ordered by Judge
Hoyt II. Wheeler on the ground that two
jurors were disqualified. The case was taken
before the United States court Of appeals in
New York city on writ Of error late in the
year 1904, on the ground that Judge Wheel
ers decision was contrary to law, where IT
was argued for Mr.. Clement by Michael II.
Cardozo, but the writ Of error was dismissed
Since then the case has been postponed for
various reasons until the present term Of
United States court when it was taken up
May /,