Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1913-10-16
Ohio Druggist Seeks to Recover
Damages of $4,000.
Case Grows Out of Prosecution for
Alleged Illegal Sale Of Liquor Three
Years Ago while University
Executive Was at Miami.


which the plaintiffs case and the case for
the defense were outlined. The introduce
ton of evidence for the plaintiff was be-
gun by calling President Benton to the
stand. There followed long, gruelling
examination of the witness by Attorney
V. A. Billiard, interrupted frequently by
objections and demands for exceptions on
both sides.
This case which was entered in Chit
tender county court in July, 1912. came up
at the September term in that year, when
the defendants demurrer to the declara-
ton was sustained. An amended declara-
ton was filed in February of this year.
The case grows out of a prosecution for
alleged Illegal liquor selling. brought by
President Benton when he was president
of Miami University.
The plaintiff is a young physician of
oxford. Ohio, DIR. Hugh NJ. Moore, a
graduate Of Miami University and Johns
Hopkins medical school, and son of a
trustee Of Miami. From the time Dr..
Benton became president of Miami Uni
%versity IN 1902 until September, 1870, Dir.
Moore was a medical director of the in
stitutton. In Feb; uary of the same year
he had become Interested in a drug store.
In November. 1910, DR.. Benton is alleged
to have filed a complaint against him in
the local magistrates court, charging him
with the Illegal sale r. liquor to a man
named Norman Swccting on n certain
evening of that month. This case went
against DIR. Moore in two courts and on
appeal to a still higher tribunal it was
dismissed. DR.. Moore now comes to Yer
mont to sue President Benton for having
caused his prosecution. He claims the
action in Ohio was brought maliciously
and without probable cause.
DR.. Moore's lawyer are V. A. Billiard
and John j.. Enright of this city, and c.
l.. Hopping of Cincinnati and NJ. f. Bick-
ley of Hamilton, Ohio. The Miami Uni
versity authorities are so heartily with
President Benton in this case growing
out of his action on behalf of the institu-
ton that they have sent on one of the
trustees of the university, Judge John
Van Deman of Dayton, to assist H. the
trial. President Bonton's local lawyers
are Judge c. II. Darling and Judge Z. c.
Mower.
After Mr.. Billiard had outlined what the
plaintiff would attempt to prove, Judge
Van Deman addressed a few eloquent
words to the jurors. He characterized
NV ''ih III 4 ~ 90 "
gross outrage and nothing less He
said the evidence would show that since
the case arose DR.. Benton had been in
Ohio in the town whore DIR. Moore lives
and intimated that there had been oppor-
tunity for suing him there if the plain
tiff had wished to.
On the witness stand Or. Benton proved
a rather too fluent witness. and several
f,,,p- ,l, aA,,r. .,,,ay,,,I~ -,.,C fprr.l
to cry for mercy. \ good part of the
examination of this witness was given
up to an apparent attempt to extract
from him some admission of having at
one time or another had a falling out
with Or. Moore, which would help make
the existence of malice more probable.
The witness was asked to recollcct, if
possible, a difference which he and DR..
Moore might have had over the hiring
of a nurse for two sick students, but
could remember no such incident. Asked
if he r~eprimanded DIR. Moore for his
attitude on the liquor question, the wit
ness said he did not. Asked if he
talked with the plaintiff over the tele-
phone about his personal habits. DIR.
Benton answered: NO" Later, IF his
own accord, he corrected this statement
by saying that DR.. Moore had on one
occasion called him up and had a talk
with him which might perhaps come with
in that description.
Asked If he went to the plaintiff to
talk to him about his personal habits,
President Benton answered: He came to
me-" Asked if he had ever seen DR..
Moore under the influence of liquor. he
said he had not to his knowledge. Asked
If he had based his talk on his own oh.
servations. President Benton answered
that he had Information.
An attempt was made to draw from
DR.. Benton an admission that he became
indignant at DIR. Moore when the latter
brought him charges of unspeakable
misconduct on the part of a member
of his faculty who was later dismissed.
DR.. Benton stated that it was true that
this man had been dismissed for dis
graceful cause, but denied that DIR.
Moore had ever brought information of
that kind to him.
Questions were put to President Ben
ton having reference to a stock trans
action in which he was minated to have
been interested. Counsel attempted to
draw out an answer to the effect that he
had lnloaded stock upon DIR. Moore, but
apparently got no satisfaction on tina
line of attack.
y great part of the afternoon session
was devoted to arguments of counsel
over the admissibility of certain docu-
ments having to do with the Ohio
prosecution of Moore, without first hav-
ing put in the record of that case.
AT one point in the afternoon session,
after President Benton had stated that
a recent graduate of Miami named
had given him certain information
concerning DR.. Moore which caused him
to he suspicious, the attorneys for the
plaintiff urged him to go ahead and tell
what Mr., Soule had told him. The result
was the recital Of "A tale which put the
plaintiff in anything but an enviable
light about "A sale of morphine to a man
under treatment I'm an asylum. Accord
ing to this story, DIR, Moore participated
IN the selling to the wretch almost un-
der the eyes of the authorities.
IT is predicted that the trial of the
case will take several days.
The jury is composed of NJ. G. Bruce
OF Williston. Ralph Clark of Charlotte,
zen DUEL of South Burlington, Thomas
mos OF Essex, w. II. Como of West
ioid' n. b.. Hall of Bolton, ]. c. Hodges
OF Richmond, l.. II. Howard of Westford.
/, !" jackson OF Milton, Grant Kenyon
OF nun ington. H.. j, Metcalf of Under
mn ana II. b. smith of Underhill.