Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1913-10-23
CASE CAME TO SUDDEN END,
Moore VS.. Benton Suit Put over
until March Term.
pIaiutiRs Counsel Sought To Have
Trial Delayed Few Days. Pend
Ing Correction In Ohio of
Municipal Court Record.

The trial in the case of Hugh NJ.
Moore against Guy Potter Benton came
20 a sudden end Thursday afternoon
when the court refused the request of
Dr. Moores attorneys that the case be
held up few days awaiting the ar
rival of a properly certified record OF a
trial in an Ohio court. and put the case
over for the March term.
The suit which is for alleged malicious
prosecution, Is based upon the claim that
President Benton while president of Miami
University at oxford, Ohio, malicouslN
caused Or. Moore to be arrested and
prosecuted for the illegal selling of liquor
to one Norman Sweeting of that town.
The declaration filed by DIR. noore's at
torneys alleged that DIR. Moore was tried
before Judge Sloan in the mayors court
of Miami.
When the plaintiff presented a certified
record of the proceedings in that court
it appeared from the document that the
name Of the judge was not \. f. Sloan
but Thomas l.. King. This might seem
to the laynnn to he of little Importance,
hut the plaintiff wanted to prove. what
was probably the fact. that Sloan and
not King was the Judge at that pro-
ceeding. And the plaintiff had SO de-
cared
To heal this Inconsistency and get
proper records of that trial upon which
the whole OF this case hinged, The
plaintiff, through his LAWYER V. A.
Bullard, asked to have the trial delayed
while he sent back to Ohio to have the
record corrected.
Judge Stanton stated that in view Of
the great amount of business before the
- hn.
such delay would he unfair to other
parties and to the state He therefore
put an end to the case as far as this
form Of court is concerned by continuing
# over for the March term.
The case was further complicated in
this connection by another point which
the attorneys on both side spent most
Of the day In arguing while the jurors
were excused from listening.
1t appeared by Inference only from
the record and from the statements of
counsel that when President Benton first
brought DR.. Moore into Mayor Soan's
court in Ohio. the complaint had been
enormously made out 50 that while it
charged him with having sold liquor it
enumerated the statutes he had
broken certain sections of the Ohio law
regarding illegal voting. 1t appeared
that Immediately this mistake was dis
covered that complaint against DR.. Moore
was dismissed and another, drawn as
to charge him with violation of the
statutes against the illegal selling Of
liquor. was substituted in its place and
the case went on.
The plaintiffs declaration was so drawn
as to state this first complaint and dis
nissal az case terminating in DR..
Moore's favor in the that is
necessary to support an action for
malicious prosecution so that he might
be sued on n separate count for that as
If it had been a separate trial.
Judge Darlings argument to the court
was to the effect that this was not a
separate trial terminating in Or, Moore's
favor in the sense necessary to enable
him to sue upon II as a separate in
stance of malicious prosecution, but
rather that 1t was preliminary chapter
of the same case. In other words, it
was claimed that this dismissal and new
complaint merely threw that defective
paper out of the case and did not com
plete one case in any real sense and
begin another
Arguing on this ground. President
Benton's counsel claimed that it might
be Of no use getting the record corrected
because in its corrected form the record
might not make case They therefore
urged the court TO exercise its discretion
and compel the plaintiff to show the
record of the other trial, or the rest Of
the tr1al-whichcvor it might be-that it
might appear without relying upon in
ference whether or not the alleged
prosecution for illegal voting was a real
prosecution or lust false start i'm the
action for Illegal selling. The court
decided however to contine its ruling to
the other point.